Download Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity

Technologies To Maintain Biological
Diversity
March 1987
NTIS order #PB87-207494
Recommended Citation:
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity, OTA-F-330 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March
1987].
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 8 7 - 6 1 9 8 0 3
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402
The reduction of the Earth’s biological diversity has emerged as a public policy
issue in the last several years. Growing awareness of this planetary problem has
prompted increased study of the subject and has led to calls to increase public and
private initiatives to address the problem, This interest in maintaining biological
diversity has created a common ground for a variety of groups concerned with
implications of a reduction or ultimate loss of the planet’s genetic, species, or ecosystem diversity,
One major concern is that loss of plant, animal, and microbial resources may
impair future options to develop new important products and processes in agriculture, medicine, and industry. Concerns also exist that loss of diversity undermines
the potential of populations and species to respond or adapt to changing environmental conditions. Because humans ultimately depend on environmental support
functions, special caution should be taken to ensure that diversity 1osses do not
disrupt these functions. Finally, esthetic and ethical motivation to avoid the irreversible loss of unique life forms has played an increasingly major role in promoting public and private programs to conserve particular species or habitats,
The broad implications of loss of biological diversity are also reflected in the
different concerns and jurisdictions of congressional committees that requested
or supported this study. Requesters include the House Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology; Senate Committee on Foreign Relations; and Senate Committee
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. The House Committee on Foreign Affairs;
House Committee on Agriculture; and House Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries endorsed the requested study.
The task presented to OTA by these committees was to clarify for Congress
the nature of the problems of reduction of the Earth’s biological diversity and to
set forth a range of policy options available to Congress to respond to various concerns. The principal aim of this report is to identify and assess the technological
and institutional opportunities and constraints to maintaining biological diversity
in the united States and worldwide. Two background papers (Grassroots Conservation of Biological Diversity in the United States and Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States: Data Considerations) and a staff paper (The Role of U.S.
Development Assistance in Maintaining Bio]ogical Diversity in Developing Countries) were also prepared in conjunction with this study.
OTA is grateful for the valuable assistance of the study’s advisory panel, workgroups, workshop participants, authors of background papers, and the many other
reviewers from the public and private sectors who provided advice and information throughout the course of this assessment. As with all OTA studies, the content
of this report is the sole responsibility of OTA.
Director
...
{11
Advisory Panel
Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
Kenneth Dahlberg, Chair
Department of Political Science
Western Michigan University
Major Goodman
Department of Crop Science
North Carolina State University
Stephen Brush
International Agricultural Development
University of California, Davis
Grenville Lucas
The Herbarium
Kew Royal Botanic Gardens
Peter Carlson
Director
Crop Genetics International
Richard Norgaard
Department of Agricultural and Resource
Economics
University of California, Berkeley
Rita Colwell
Office of the Vice President for Academic
Affairs
University of Maryland, Adelphi
Robert Prescott-Allen
Partner
PADATA, Inc.
Raymond Dasmann
Department of Environmental Studies
University of California, Santa Cruz
Paul Risser
Vice President for Research
University of New Mexico
Clarence Dias
President
International Center for Law in
Development
Oliver Ryder
Research Department
San Diego Zoo
Donald Duvick
Senior Vice President of Research
Pioneer Hi-Bred International
Michael Soul&
Adjunct Professor
School of Natural Resources
University of Michigan
David Ehrenfeld
Cook College
Rutgers University
John Sullivan
Vice President of production
American Breeders Service
NOTE: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the advisory
panel members. The panel does not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA
assumes full responsibility for the report and the accuracy of its contents.
iv
OTA Project Staff
Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
Roger C. Herdman, Assistant Director, OTA
Health and Life Sciences Division
Walter E. Parham, Food and Renewable Resources Program Manager
Analytical Staff
Susan Shen, Project Director and Analyst
Edward F, MacDonald, Analyst
Michael S. Strauss, Analyst
Catherine Carlson, ’ Research Assistant
Robert Grossman,’ Anal~wt
Allen Ruby, Research Assistant
Contractors
James L. Chamberlain
David Netter
Robert Prescott-Allen
Bruce Ross-Sheriff
Linda Starke’ and Lisa Olson, ’ Editors
Administrative Staff
Patricia Durana,” Beckie Erickson,’ and Sally Shaforth,” Administrative
Nellie Hammond, Secretary
Carolyn Swann, Secretar&y
1
Th rough January 1986,
2’1’hrough August I $)8s,
3
Summer 1985.
4
Through August 1986.
5
After August 1986,
~’17h rough July I !385,
7
Thruugh Cktober 1 !]86,
8
F’rom [)[1(:. 15, 1986,
Assistants
CONTENTS
Chapter
Page
l. Summary and Options for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Part I: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
2. Importance of Biological Diversity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3. Status of Biological Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4. Interventions To Maintain Biological Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . 89
Part II: TECHNOLOGIES
5. Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............101
6. Maintaining Animal Diversity Offsite , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,., ., . . . .137
7. Maintaining Plant Diversity Offsite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........169
8. Maintaining Microbial Diversity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........205
Part III: INSTITUTIONS
9. Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States . . . . . . . . . . .. ....221
10. Maintaining Biological Diversity Internationally . ..............,.....253
11. Biological Diversity and Development Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , ..,285
APPENDIXES:
A. Glossary of Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.............311
B. Glossary of Terms . . . ., ., ., ., ., , ., ..., . . . . . . . . ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . ...313
C. Participants of Technical Workgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............317’
D. Grassroots Workshop Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..., . . . ....319
E, Commissioned Papers and Authors. . . . . .................,..........320
Chapter 1
Summary and
Options for Congress
.
CONTENTS
Page
The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Interventions To Maintain Biological Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
The Role of Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Strengthen the National Commitment To Maintain
Biological Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Option: Establish a National Biological Diversity Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Option: Develop a National Conservation Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Option: Amend Legislation of Federal Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Option: Establish a National Conservation Education Act...... . . . . . . . 14
Option: Amend the International Security and Development Act . . . . . . 14
Increase the Nation’s Ability to Maintain Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I!i
Option: Direct the National Science Foundation-To Establish a
Conservation Biology Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Option: Establish a National Endowment for Biological Diversity . . . . . . 17
Option: Provide Sufficient Funding to Existing Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8
Option: Amend Legislation To Improve Onsite and Offsite
Program Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Option: Establish New Programs To Fill Specific Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Enhance the Knowledge Base . . . . . . . .....;... . . . . .; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Option: Establish a Small Clearinghouse for Biological Data . . . . . . . . . . 2o
Option: Fund Existing Network of Natural Heritage Conservation Data
Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......+.. 21
Support International Initiatives to Maintain Biological Diversity . . . . . . . 22
Option: Increase Support of International Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Option: Continue To Encourage Multilateral Development Banks to
Develop and Implement Environmental Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Option: Examine U.S. Options on the Issue of International
Exchange of Genetic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Option: Amend the Export Administration Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Address Loss of Biological Diversity in Developing Countries. . . . . . . . . . . 27
Option: Restructure Conservation~Related Sections of the Foreign
Assistance Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Option: Direct AID To Adopt Strategic Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Option: Direct AID To Acquire Greater Access to Conservation
Expertise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Option: Establish a New Funding Account for Conservation
Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Option: Apply More Public Law 480 Funds To Promote Diversity
Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Tables
Table No.
l-1.
l-2.
l-3.
l-4.
Page
Examples of Management Systems To Maintain Biological Diversity . . . 6
Management Systems and Conservation Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Federal Laws Relating to Biological Diversity Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Summary of Policy Issues and Options for Congressional Action
Related to Biological Diversity Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Box
Box No.
Page
l-A. What Is Biological Diversity? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Chapter 1
Summary and Options for Congress
Most biological diversity survives without human interventions to maintain it. But as natural
areas become progressively modified by human
activities, maintaining a diversity of ecosytems,
species, and genes will increasingly depend on
intervention by applying specific technologies.
A spectrum of technologies are available to support maintenance of biological diversity (defined in box l-A),
Box I-A.—What Is Biological Diversity?
Biological diversity refers to the variety and variability among living organisms and the ecological
complexes in which they occur. Diversity can be defined as the number of different items and their
relative frequency. For biological diversity, these items are organized at many levels, ranging from
complete ecosystems to the chemical structures that are the molecular basis of heredity. Thus, the
term encompasses different ecosystems, species, genes, and their relative abundance.
How does diversity vary within ecosystem, species, and genetic levels? For example,
● Ecosystem diversity: A landscape interspersed with croplands, grasslands, and woodlands has
more diversity than a landscape with most of the woodlands converted to grasslands and
croplands.
● Species diversity: A rangeland with 100 species of annual and perennial grasses and shrubs
has more diversity than the same rangeland after heavy grazing has eliminated or greatly reduced the frequency of the perennial grass species.
c Genetic diversity: Economically useful crops are developed from wild plants by selecting valuable inheritable characteristics. Thus, many wild ancestor plants contain genes not found in
today’s crop plants. An environment that includes both the domestic varieties of a crop (such
as corn) and the crop’s wild ancestors has more diversity than an environment with wild ancestors eliminated to make way for domestic crops.
Concerns over the loss of biological diversity to date have been defined almost exclusively in
terms of species extinction. Although extinction is perhaps the most dramatic aspect of the problem,
it is by no means the whole problem. The consequence is a distorted definition of the problem, which
fails to account for many of the interests concerned and may misdirect how concerns should be addressed.
THE PROBLEM
The Earth’s biological diversity is being reduced at a rate that is likely to increase over
the next several decades. This loss of diversity
—measured at the ecosystem, species, and genetic levels—is occurring in most regions of the
world, although it is most pronounced in particular areas, most notably in the tropics, The
principal cause is the increasing conversion of
natural ecosystems to human-modified land-
scapes. Such alterations can provide considerable benefits when the land’s capability to sustain development is preserved, but compelling
evidence indicates that rapid and unintended
reductions in biological diversity are undermining society’s capability to respond to future
opportunities and needs. Most scientists and
conservationists working in this area believe
that the problem has reached crisis proportions,
3
4 Technologies T O Maintain Biological Diversity
●
although a few remain skeptical and maintain
that this level of concern is based on exaggerated or insufficient data.
The abundance and complexity of ecosystems, species, and genetic types have defied
complete inventory and thus the direct assessment of changes, As a result, an accurate estimate of the rate of loss is not currently possible. Determining the number of species that
exist, ] for example, is a major obstacle in assessing the rate of species extinction. But use of
biological principles and data on land use conversions have allowed biologists to deduce that
the rate of loss is greater than the rate at which
new species evolve.
Reduced diversity may have serious consequences for civilization. It may eliminate options to use untapped resources for agricultural,
industrial, and medicinal development. Crop
genetic resources have accounted for about 50
percent of productivity increases and for annual contributions of about $1 billion to U.S.
agriculture, For instance, two species of wild
green tomatoes discovered in an isolated area
of the Peruvian highlands in the early 1960s
have contributed genes for marked increase in
fruit pigmentation and soluble-solids content
currently worth nearly $5 million per year to
the tomato-processing industry. Future gains
will depend on use of genetic diversity.
Loss of plant species could mean loss of billions of dollars in potential plant-derived pharmaceutical products. About 25 percent of the
number of prescription drugs in the United
States are derived from plants. In 1980, their
total market value was $8 billion. Loss of tropical rain forests, which harbor an extraordinary
diversity of species, and loss of deserts, which
harbor genetically diverse vegetation, are of
particular concern. Consequences to humans
of loss of potential medicines have impacts that
go beyond economic benefits. Alkaloids from
the rosy periwinkle flower (Catharantus roseus),
a tropical plant, for example, are used in the
‘Approximately 1.7 million species have been identified. Millions more, however, have yet to be discovered. Recent research
indicates that species of tropical insects alone could number 30
million.
H.
A foggy,
moss- and epiphyte-enshrouded tropical forest
i n Ecuador is about to be cleared for local agriculture,
a main cause of loss of diversity.
successful treatment of several forms of cancer, including Hodgkin’s disease and childhood
leukemia.
Although research in biotechnology suggests
exciting prospects, scientists will continue to
rely on genetic resources crafted by nature. For
example, new methods of manipulating genetic
material enable the isolation and extraction of
a desired gene from one plant or organism and
its insertion into another, Nature provides the
basic materials; science enables the merging
of desired properties into new forms or combinations. Loss of diversity, therefore, may undermine societies’ realization of the technology’s potential.
Another threatening aspect of diversity loss
is the disruption of environmental regulatory
Ch. l—Summary and Options for Congress
●
5
tiatives to maintain diversity. Cultural factors,
as reflected in the way Americans identify with
the bald eagle or the American bison or how
plants and animals form a fundamental aspect
of human artistic expression, illustrate these
values,
” H
A dense stand of Zea dip/operennis in Sierra de Manantalan,
Jalisco, Mexico. This ancient wild relative of corn could
be worth billions of dollars to corn growers around the
world because of its resistance to seven major diseases
plaguing domesticated corn.
functions that depend on the complex interactions of ecosystems and the species that support them.
Diverse wetlands provide productive and protective processes of economic benefit. Millions
of waterfowl and other birds of economic value
depend on North American wetlands for breeding, feeding, migrating, and overwintering.
About two-thirds of the major U.S. commercial fish, crustacean, and mollusk species depend on estuaries and salt marshes for spawning and nursery habitat. Wetlands temporarily
store flood waters, reducing flow rates and protecting people and property downstream from
flood and storm damage, One U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers’ estimate places the present value
of the Charles River wetlands (in Massachusetts) for its role in controlling floods at $17 million per year. Although placing dollar values
on such ecosystem services is problematic and
reflects rough approximations, the magnitude
of the economic benefit stresses the importance
of these often overlooked values.
Humans also value diversity for reasons other
than the utility it provides. Esthetic motivations
have played important parts in promoting ini-
Forces that contribute to the worldwide loss
of diversity are varied and complex. Historically, concern for diversity loss focused on commercial exploitation of threatened or endangered species. Increasingly, however, attention
has been focused more on indirect threats that
are nonselective and more fundamental and
sweeping in scope.
Most losses of diversity are unintended consequences of human activity. Air and water pollution, for example, can cause diversity loss far
from the pollution’s source, The decline of several fish species in Scandinavia and the near
extinction of a salmon species in Canada have
been attributed to acidification of lakes due to
acid rain. Population growth in itseIf may not
be intrinsically threatening to biological diversity. A populous country like Japan is an
example of how a high standard of living, appropriate government policies, and a predominantly urbanized population can limit the rate
of ecosystem disruption. However, when population growth is compounded by poverty, a
negative impact is characteristic. In many tropical developing countries, high population growth
and the practice of shifting agriculture employed
by peasant farmers are considered the greatest threats to diversity,
This report assesses the potential of diversitymaintenance technologies and the institutions
developing and applying these technologies.
But maintaining biological diversity will depend on more than applying technologies. Technologies do not exist to re-create the vast
majority of ecosystems, species, and genes that
are being lost, and there is little hope that such
technologies will be developed in the foreseeable future. Therefore, efforts to maintain diversity must also address the socioeconomic, political, and cultural factors involved.
6 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
INTERVENTION$ TO MAINTAIN BIOLOGICAL DIVERSiTY
bination of the four systems and by improving
links to take advantage of their potential complementariness. The objectives of the management systems are summarized in table 1-2.
There are two general approaches to maintaining biological diversity. It may be maintained where it is found naturally (onsite), or
it may be removed from the site and kept elsewhere (offsite). Onsite maintenance can focus
on a particular species or population or, alternatively, on an entire ecosystem. Offsite maintenance can focus on organisms preserved as
germplasm or on organisms preserved as living collections. Table 1-1 lists examples of management systems. These management systems
have somewhat different objectives, but all four
are necessary components of an overall strategy to conserve diversity. Conservation objectives can be enhanced by investing in any com-
Maintaining plants, animals, and microbes
onsite—in their natural environments—is the
most effective way to conserve a broad range
of diversity. Onsite technologies primarily focus on establishing an area to protect ecosystems or species and on regulating species harvest. To date, the guidelines for optimal design
of protected areas are limited, however.
Offsite maintenance technologies are applied
to conserving a small but often critical part of
Table 1-1 .—Examples of Management Systems To Maintain Biological Diversity
Off site
On site
Ecosystem maintenance
Species management
National parks
Agroecosystems
Living collections
Zoological parks
Germplasm storage
Seed and pol=n banks
Research natural areas
Wildlife refuges
Botanic gardens
Semen, ova, and embryo banks
Marine sanctl]aries
/n-situ genebanks
Field collections
Microbial culture collections
Resource development
planning
Game parks and reserves
Captive breeding programs
Tissue culture collections
~
SOURCE
*
Increasing human intervention
Increasing emphasis on natural processes
—
Off Ice of Technology Assessment 1986
Table 1-2. —Management Systems and Conservation Objectives
-—
●
a reservoir or “1 ibrary ” of
genetic resources
●
●
●
●
Off site
Onsite
Ecosystem maintenance
Maintain:
evolutionary potential
Species maintenance
Maintain:
Living
collections
—
Maintain:
.—
Germplasm storage —
Maintain:
genetic interaction between semidomesticated
species and wild relatives
. wi Id popu Iations for sustainable exploitation
s breeding material that cannot be stored in
genebanks
. convenient source of
germplasm for breeding
programs
●
functioning of various
ecological processes
. viable populations of
threatened species
vast majority of known
and unknown species
. species that provide i mportant indirect benefits
(for pollination or pest
cent rol)
c “keystone” species with
important ecosystem support or regulating function
representatives of unique
natural ecosystems
SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1986
. field research and development on new varieties and
breeds
s off site cultivation and
propagation
●
●
captive breeding stock of
populations threatened in
the wild
ready access to wild species for research, education, and display
●
●
●
Iections of germ plasm
from uncertain or threatened sources
reference or type collections
as standard for research
and patenting purposes
access to germ plasm from
wide geographic areas
CO I
“ genetic materials from critically endangered species
Ch. 1—Summary and Options for Congress
—
●
7
the total diversity. Technologies for plants include seed storage, in vitro culture, and living
collections. Most animals are commonly maintained offsite as captive populations. Cryogenic
storage of seeds, in vitro cultures, semen, or
embryos can improve the efficiency of offsite
maintenance and reduce costs.
Determining the efficacy and appropriateness
of technologies depends on biological, sociopolitical, and economic factors. Taken together,
these factors influence decisionmaking and
must be considered in defining objectives for
maintaining diversity and for identifying strategies to meet these objectives.
Microbial diversity is important for both its
beneficial and its harmful effects, That is, microbes (e. g., bacteria and viruses) can present
serious threats to human health. By the same
token, these organisms are used in a range of
beneficial activities, such as for developing vaccines or for treating wastes.
Biological considerations are central to the
objectives and choice of systems. Only some
diversity is threatened; therefore, the task of
maintaining it can focus on elements that need
special attention. A biologically unique species
(one that is the only representative of an entire
genus or family) or a species with high esthetic
appeal may be the focus of intensive conservation management.
Scientists are hampered in their storage, use,
and stud~’ of microbial diversity by their inability to isolate most micro-organisms. For
those micro-organisms that have been isolated
and identified, offsite maintenance is the most
cost-effective technique.
Links between onsite and offsite management
systems are important to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of efforts to maintain
diversity. Some technologies developed for domesticated species, for instance, can be adapted
to wild species. Embryo transfer technologies
developed for livestock are now being adapted
for endangered wild animals.
Political factors also influence conservation
objectives and management systems. Commitments of government resources, policies, and
programs determine the focus of attention, and
to a large extent, such commitments reflect public interests and support. For example, a disproportionate share of U.S. resources is devoted
to programs for a few of the many endangered
species. Substantial sums have been spent in
1 lth-hour efforts to save the California condor
and the black-footed ferret, while other endangered organisms such as invertebrate species
receive little attention.
The applicability of management systems also
depends on economic factors. Costs of alternative management systems and the value of
resources to be conserved may be relatively
clear in the case of genetic resources. For example, the benefits of plant breeding programs
compared with the cost of seed maintenance
justify germplasm storage technologies, However, cost-benefit analysis is more difficult
when benefits are diffuse and accrue over a long
period, And onsite maintenance programs compete with other interests for land, personnel,
and funds.
Photo credit B Dresser
Staff of the Cincinnati Wildlife Research Federation
working on an anesthetized white rhinoceros in an effort
to develop embryo transfer techniques. Proper equipment
must be developed for COI Iect ion of embryos from the
more common white rhino before it is tested on the
endangered black rhino. The white rhino would then
be used as a surrogate for embryos from black rhinos.
Success in maintaining biological diversity
depends largely on institutions that develop and
apply the various technologies, Within the
United States, a variety of laws in addition to
public and private programs address various
aspects of diversity conservation, But while
8
Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
some aspects of diversity are covered, other
aspects are ignored. Table I-3 lists major Federal
mandates pertinent to diversity maintenance.
Because U.S. interest in biological diversity
extends beyond its borders, the United States
subscribes to a number of international conservation laws and supports programs through
bilateral and multilateral assistance channels.
However, many of these programs have too little support to be effective in resolving internationally important problems.
Both domestic and international institutions
deal with aspects of diversity. Some focus attention exclusively on maintaining certain agricultural crops, such as wheat, and others focus on certain wild species, such as whales and
migratory waterfowl, A shift has occurred in
recent years from the traditional species pro-
tection approach to a more encompassing ecosystem maintenance approach.
Much of the work important to diversity maintenance is done in isolation and is too disjunct
to address the full range of concerns. And some
concerns receive little or no attention. For example, the objectives of the USDA’s National
Plant Germplasm System (NPGS) place primary
emphasis on economic plants and little emphasis on non-crop species. Similarly, programs
to protect endangered wild species direct attention away from species that are threatened
but not listed as endangered. The lack of connections between programs is another institutional constraint. Linkages help define common
interests and areas of potential cooperation—
important steps in defining areas of redundancy,
neglect, and opportunity.
THE ROLE OF CONGRESS
Given the implications and irreversible nature of biological extinction, policymakers must
continue to address the problem of diminishing biological diversity. A significant increase
in attention and funding in this area seems consistent with U.S. interests, in view of the benefits the United States currently derives from
biological diversity and the advances that biotechnology might achieve given a diversity of
genetic resources. In addition, enough information exists to define priorities for diversity
maintenance and to provide a rationale for taking initiatives now, although further research
and critical review of the nature and extent of
diversity loss are also warranted,
OTA has identified options available to Congress. These options are discussed under five
major issues:
1. strengthening the national commitment,
2. increasing the Nation’s ability to maintain
biological diversity,
3. enhancing the knowledge base,
4. supporting international initiatives, and
5. addressing loss of biological diversity in
developing countries.
For each issue, alternative or complementary
options are presented. These range from legislative initiatives to programmatic changes
within Federal agencies. Options also define
opportunities to cultivate or support private sector initiatives. In a number of areas, however,
success will depend on increased or redirected
commitments of resources. Table 1-4 provides
a summary of policy issues and options.
Strongthon the National Commitment
To Maintain Biological Diversity
The national commitment to maintain biological diversity could be strengthened. Despite
society’s reliance on biological resources for
sustenance and economic development, loss of
diversity has yet to emerge as a major concern
among decisionmakers. About 2 percent of the
national budget is spent on natural resourcesrelated programs, which include diversity-conservation programs as one subset.
A number of government and private programs address maintenance of biological diversity, but most programs have objectives too nar-
Ch. l—Summary and Options for Congress . 9
Table l-3.— Federal Laws Relating to Biological Diversity Maintenance
Common name
Resource affected
U S, Code
wild animals
16 USC, 667, 701
Onsite diversity mandates:
Lacey
Act
Migratory
of
Bird
1900
.,
Treaty
.,
...
...
.
.
.,
16 U.S,C 703 et seq.
16 USC 715 et seq.
Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937 (Pittman-Robertson Act) ., ... .
wild animals
16 U SC 669 et seq.
Bald Eagle ProtectIon Act of 1940 . . . . . . . . . ... ., ...
wild birds
16 U S.C 668 et seq.
Whaling
16 U.S C. 916 et seq
..,
.
.,
.
wild birds
1949
.,
.
Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, , .,, , .,..,,.,. . . . . .
of
1918,
.
wild birds
Act
of
...
.,
ConventIon
Act
.,
Fish Restoration and Management Act of 1950
(Dingell-Johnson
Act)
...
.,
.
.
.
.,
.
wild animals
.
fisheries
16 U S.C 777 et seq
fisheries
16 U.S. C, 757a-f
Fur Seal Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-702). . . . . . . . ...
wild animals
16 U.S.C, 1151 et seq.
Marine
wild animals
16 U S.C, 1361 et seq
wild plants and
animals
7 U SC, 136
16 U.S.C. 460, 668, 715, 1362, 1371, 1372,
1402, 1531 et seq.
Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1977
(Public Law 94-532). . . . . . . . .,, ..,,.,, ,, .,, ,, ,, .., ,,
fisherles
16 U.S C. 971. 1362, 1801 et seq.
Whale Conservation and ProtectIon Study Act of 1976
(Public
Law
94-532)
.,
.,
.
.
.,
...
Endangered
Species
Act
Act
of
of
1973
1972
.
.
.
Protection
.,
.
Anadromous Fish Conservation Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-304) ...
Mammal
.
.
..,
(Public
.,
Law
.,
.
93-205)
.,
wild animals
16 USC 915 et seq
Fish and Wlldllfe Conservation Act of 1980 (Publtc Law 96-366) .,, ,.
wild animals
16 U S.C 2901 et seq.
Salmon and Steelhead Conservation and Enhancement Act of 1980
(Publlc
Law
96-561
),.
.,,
,,
,,,
fisheries
16 U.S C 1823 et seq
terrestrlal/aquatic
habitats
16 U SC, 694
sanctuarles
16 U.S.C 694
natural landmarks
16 USC 461-467
Fish
and
Fish
and
Historic
Fish
and
Wildllfe
Coordination
Game
Sanctuary
Sites,
Wildlife
Buildings,
Act
of
Act
Act
and
1956
of
of
1934
.
.
.
.
...
..,
Act
.
.,
.,
1934
Antiquities
.
.,
.
.,
of
.
.,
1935
.
.
,,
Wilderness Act of 1964 (Publlc Law 88-577) .,, ,,, .,,..,,
National Wlldllfe Refuge System Admlnistratlon Act of 1966
(Public Law 91-135) .,, ,, .., ,, .,, . . . . . .
.
.
.
wildllfe sanctuaries
15 U S C, 713 et seq 16 U S.C 742 et seq
wilderness areas
16 U S C. 1131 et seq
refuges
16 U.S C 668dd et seq
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (Publlc Law 90-542) . . . . . .
river segments
16 U.S, C, 1271-1287
Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
(Publlc
Law
92-532)
..
...,,
.,,
.,,
..,
coastal areas
16 U,S.C 1431-1434
33 U,S.C. 1401, 1402, 1411-1421. 14411444
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976
(Publlc
Law
94-579)
.,
.,
.,
.
.
.
.
.
.
,..
.
public
domain
lands
7 U.s.c 1010-1012
16 U S.C. 5, 79, 420, 460, 478, 522, 523, 551,
1339
30 us c. 50, 51, 191
40 u s c. 319
43 U.S C, 315, 661, 664, 665, 687, 869, 931,
934-939, 942-944, 946-959, 961-970, 1701,
1702, 1711- 1722, 1731-1748, 1753,
1761.1771, 1781, 1782
National Forest Management Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-588) . . . . national forest lands
16 U.S.C 472, 500, 513, 515, 516, 518, 521,
576, 581, 1600, 1601-1614
Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-514) . . public domain lands
16 U S C 1332, 1333
43 US C. 1739, 1751-1753. 1901-1908
Of/site diversity mandates:
Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (Research and Marketing Act) ., agricultural plants
and an finals
5 U,s.c 5315
7 U,S.C. 1006, 1010, 1011, 1924-1927, 1929,
1939-1933, 1941-1943, 1947, 1981, 1983,
1985, 1991, 1992, 2201, 2204, 2212, 26512654, 2661-2668
16 U.S.C, 590, 1001-1005
42 U.S.C, 3122
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-205) ., ., wild plants and
animals
7 U SC 136
16 US C. 460, 668, 715, 1362, 1371, 1372,
1402, 1531 et seq
Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978
(Public Law 95-307), ., ., ., ... . . . . . . . . .
tree
NOTE Laws enacted prior to 1957 are cited by Chapter and not Publ!c Law number
SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1986
germplasm
16 U.S.C 1641-1647
10 Techno/ogjes T O Maintain Biological Diversity
●
———
—
Table l-4.—Summary of Policy Issues for Congressional Action Related to Biological Diversity Maintenance
Issue
Finding
Strengthen national commitment
Adopt a comprehensive approach
to maintaining bio/ogica/ diversity
Increase public awareness of
biological diversity issues
Increase ability to maintain
biological diversity
/reprove research, technology
development and application
Fill gaps and inadequacies in
existing programs
Enhance knowledge base
/reprove data co//ection,
maintenance, and use
Support international initiatives
Provide greater leadership in the
international/ arena
Promote the exchange of genetic
resources
Address loss in developing
countries
Options
Establish a national biological diversity act
Prepare a national conservation strategy
Amend appropriate legislation of Federal
agencies
Establish a national conservation education act
Amend the International Security and
Development Cooperation Act
Direct National Science Foundation to establish
a conservation biology program
Establish a national endowment for biological
diversity
Provide sufficient funding for existing
maintenance programs
Improve link between onsite and off site
programs
Establish new programs to fill specific gaps in
current efforts
Establish a clearinghouse for biological data
Enhance existing natural heritage network of
conservation data centers
Increase support of existing international
programs
Continue oversight hearings of multilateral
development banks’ activities
Examine U.S. options on international exchange
of germplasm
Amend the Export Administration Act to affirm
U.S. commitment to free exchange of
germ plasm
Amend Foreign Assistance Act
Adopt broader definition of biological diversity
in Foreign Assistance Act
Enhance capability of the Agency
for /nternationa/ Development
Direct AID to adopt strategic approach to
diversity conservation
Increase AID staffing of personnel with
environmental training
Create special account for natural resources
and the environment
Apply more Public —Law
--—.. 480 funds to effort
Estab/ish alternative funding
sources for biological diversity
,~roiects
. —
—
SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1987
rowly defined to address the broad scope of
biological diversity concerns. Nor do the ad hoc
programs use coordination and cooperation to
build a systematic approach to tackle the issue,
State and private efforts fill some gaps in Federal programs, but they do not provide a comprehensive national commitment and thus leave
many aspects of the problem uncovered.
Federal agencies, for example, coordinate the
onsite conservation activities mentioned specifically in Federal species protection laws,
such as those under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-
205), but no formal institutional mechanism exists for the thousands of plant, animal, and
microbial species not listed as threatened or
endangered. Mandates for offsite conservation
are equally vague about which species they are
to consider. For example, the Research and
Marketing Act of 1946 is intended to “promote
the efficient production and utilization of products of the soil” (7 U. S.C.A. 427), but it is interpreted narrowly by the Agricultural Research
Service (ARS) to mean economic plant species
and varieties. Thus, little government attention
has been given to conserving the multitude of
wild plant species offsite, Even less attention
-—
Ch. l—Summary and Options for Congress “ 11
is given to offsite conservation of domesticated
and wild animals.
will be made to achieve a comprehensive approach to maintaining biological diversity.
FINDING 1: A comprehensive approach is
needed to arrest the loss of biological diversity. Significant gaps in existing programs could be identified with such an approach, and the resources of organizations
concerned with the issue could be better allocated. Improved coordination could create
opportunities to enhance effectiveness and
efficiency of Federal, State, and private programs without interfering with achievement
of the programs’ goals.
Option 1.1: Enact legislation that recognizes the
importance of maintaining biological diversity as a national objective.
The broad scale of the problem of diversity
loss necessitates innovative solutions. Various
laws and programs of Federal, State, and private organizations already provide the framework for a concerted comprehensive approach.
At this time, however, few of these programs
state maintenance of biological diversity as an
explicit objective. As a result, diversity is given
cursory attention in most conservation and resource management programs. Some of them,
such as the Endangered Species Program, address diversity more directly but are concerned
with only one facet of the problem. Duplication of efforts, conflicts in goals, and gaps in
geographic and taxonomic coverage are consequences.
To resolve this institutional problem, a comprehensive approach to maintaining biological
diversity is needed. The implication is not that
all programs should address the full range of
approaches; rather, organizations should view
their own programs within the broader context
of maintaining diversity and should coordinate
their programs with those of other organizations. Programs and organizations would thereby benefit from one another. Gaps could be
identified and eventually filled, and duplicate
efforts could be reduced. And organizations
could improve efficiency by taking the responsibilities for which they are best suited. Moreover, financial support for diversity maintenance
could be more effectively distributed. A step
in this direction has been taken in recent initiatives, but congressional commitment to such
an endeavor is necessary to ensure that efforts
Current legislation addressing the loss of biological diversity in the United States is largely
piecemeal. Although many Federal laws affect
conservation of diversity, few refer to it specifically. The National Forest Management Act
of 1976 is the only legislation that mandates the
conservation of a “diversity of plant and animal communities, ” but it offers no explicit
direction on the meaning and scope of diversity maintenance.
Consequently, existing Federal programs focus on sustaining specific ecosystems, species,
or gene pools, or on protecting endangered
wildlife. Species protection laws authorize Federal agencies to manage specific animal populations and their habitats. Habitat protection
laws authorize the acquisition or designation
of habitats under Federal stewardship. Federal
laws for offsite maintenance of plants authorize the collection and genetic development of
plant species that demonstrate potential economic value.
The Endangered Species Act authorizes protection of species considered threatened or endangered in the United States, However, listing endangered species does not eliminate the
problem; efforts are hampered by slow listing
procedures, by emphasis on vertebrate animals
at the expense of plants and invertebrates, and
by concerns about conflicts that endangered
status might create.
Congress could pass a National Biological
Diversity Act to endorse the importance of the
issue and to provide guidance for a comprehensive approach. Such an act could explicitly state
maintenance of diversity as a national goal,
establish mechanisms for coordinating activities, and set priorities for diversity conservation. A national policy could bring about cooperation among Federal, State, and private
efforts, help reduce conflicting activities, and
improve efficiency and cost-effectiveness of
programs,
12 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
To be effective, a new act would require a
succinct definition of biological diversity and
explicit goals for its maintenance. Otherwise,
ambiguities would lead to misinterpretation
and confusion. Diversity, for example, could
be interpreted broadly when authorities and
funding are being sought and narrowly when
responsibilities are assigned. Identifying goals
is likely to be a long and politically sensitive
process. Decisionmakers and the public will
have to determine if conserving maximum diversity is the desirable goal. Finally, to be effective, the law must have both public support and
adequate resources, or it would simply provide
a false reassurance that something is being
done.
Option 1.2: Develop a National Conservation
Strategy for U.S. biological resources.
Another means of comprehensively addressing diversity maintenance is to develop a National Conservation Strategy (NCS). This strategy could be developed in conjunction with,
or in lieu of, a mandate as suggested in the
preceding option. The process would initiate
coordination of Federal programs. Program administrators could identify measures to reduce
overlap and duplication, to minimize jurisdictional problems, and to develop new initiatives.
A national strategy could minimize potential
competition, conflict, and duplication among
programs in the private and public sectors. In
addition, preparation of an NCS would strengthen
efforts to promote NCSS in other countries.
Some 30 countries (mostly developing countries, but also including Canada and the United
Kingdom) have initiated concrete steps to prepare an NCS. U.S. action might reinforce the
momentum for NCSs in other countries.
Congress could establish an independent
commission to prepare the NCS. Members of
the commission could serve part-time and be
provided a budget for meetings and administrative support. The commission could include
representatives from government, academia,
and the private sector. The Public Land Law
Review Commission and the National Water
Commission are potential models.
In developing a national strategy, such a commission could do the following:
●
●
●
●
assess the adequacy of existing programs
to conserve biological diversity;
formulate a national policy on maintenance of biological diversity;
identify measures required to implement
the policy, any obstacles to such measures,
and the means to overcome those obstacles;
determine how biological diversity maintenance relates to other conservation and
development interests; and
include a public consultation and information program to build a consensus on the
content of the national conservation strategy.
Another way to prepare a strategy is to tap
the resources of an established government
agency. An appropriate body could be the
Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ),
which is part of the Office of the President. Created by the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969, CEQ already prepares annual reports
for the President on the state of the environment. In doing so, it uses the services of public
and private agencies, organizations, and individuals and hence has the experience and authority to bring together various interest groups
and expertise. On the other hand, CEQ, though
fully staffed in the 1970s with a range of environmental experts, now has only a small staff
of administrators. Coordinating and guiding the
substantive development of an NCS is thus beyond the council’s current capacity except
through use of consultants.
Because the success of an NCS depends on
participation of a broad spectrum of interest
groups, its preparation could be a daunting
prospect. The number, size, and nature of U.S.
Government agencies and the different sectors
involved could make preparation and implementation of a strategy difficult.
Option 1.3: Amend the Legislation of Federal
agencies to make maintenance of biological
diversity an explicit consideration in their
activities.
Yet another means for Congress to encourage
a comprehensive approach is to make mainte-
Ch. l—Summary and Options for Congress
nance of biological diversity an explicit consideration of Federal agencies’ activities. A
number of Federal programs affecting biological diversity are scattered throughout different
agencies, but the lack of coordination results
in inefficient and inadequate coverage of the
problem.
These amendments could involve the creation of new programs, or they could lead to
modified objectives for existing programs. In
either case, the amendments should redirect
certain policies, consolidate conservation efforts, and provide criteria for settling conflicts.
An amendment for Federal land managing agencies, for example, could require that these agencies make diversity conservation a priority in
decisions relating to land acquisition, disposal,
and exchange,
Such amendments would probably be resisted
by individual Federal agencies, which could argue that they are already maintaining diversity
and do not need more explicit direction from
Congress, In addition, agencies could argue that
they could not increase their activities without
new appropriations; otherwise, the quality of
existing work could be compromised.
Before such amendments are written, a systematic review of all Federal resource legislation will be needed to determine how existing
statutory mandates and programs affect the
conservation of diversity and how they complement or contradict one another, and to designate which programs are most in need of revision. Such a complex review will take time and
money and is likely to be opposed by agencies.
FINDING 2: Because maintenance of biological diversity is a long-term problem, policy
changes and management programs must be
long lasting to be effective. But, such policies
and programs must be understood and accepted by the public, or they will be replaced
or overshadowed by shorter term concerns.
Conveying the importance of biological diversity requires formulating the issue in terms
that are technically correct yet understandable and convincing to the general public. To
undertake the initiative will require not only
●
13
biologists but also social scientists and educators working together.
Diversity loss has not captured public attention for three reasons, First, it is a complex concept to grasp. Rather than attempt to improve
understanding of the broad issue, organizations
soliciting support have made emotional appeals
to save particular appealing species or spectacular habitats. This approach is effective in
the short-term, but it keeps the constituency and
the scope of the problem narrow. Second, the
more pervasive threats to diversity, such as loss
of habitat or diminished genetic bases for agricultural crops, are gradual processes rather
than dramatic events. Third, most benefits of
maintaining diversity are often diffuse, unpriced, and reaped over the long-term, resulting in relatively low economic values being assigned to the goods and services provided. The
benefits of diversity, therefore, are not presented concretely and competitively with other
issues. Consequently, the public and policymakers generally lack an appreciation of possible consequences of diversity loss.
Notwithstanding these difficulties, environmental quality has been a major public policy
concern since the 1970s, and it remains firmly
entrenched in the consciousness of the American public. A 1985 Harris poll, for example,
indicated that 63 percent of Americans place
greater priority on environmental clean-up than
on economic growth. And because stewardship
of the environment includes maintaining diversity, this predisposition of Americans could be
built onto develop support for diversity maintenance programs.
Biological diversity benefits a variety of special interest groups; its potential constituency
is enormous but fragmented. It includes, for
example, the timber and fishing industries as
well as farmers, gardeners, plant breeders, animal breeders, recreational hunters, indigenous
peoples, wilderness enthusiasts, tourists, and
all those who enjoy nature. The combined interests of all these groups could cuItivate a national commitment to maintaining biological
diversity, if properly orchestrated.
14 Technologies
●
To
Maintain
Biological
Diversity
—
Option 2.1: Promote public education about biological diversity by establishing a National
Conservation Education Act.
Just as sustaining support to enhance environmental quality required public education
programs, so too will a concerted national effort to conserve biological diversity require a
strong public education effort. A National Conservation Education Act could be patterned after the Environmental Education Act of 1971
(Public Law 91-516), which authorized the U.S.
Commissioner of Education to establish education programs that would encourage understanding of environmental policies. z
A new act could support programs and curricula that promote, inter alia, the importance
of biological diversity to human welfare. A
small grants program could support research
and pilot public education projects. Funds
could be made available to evaluate methods
for curricula development, dissemination of
curricula, teacher training, ecological study
center design, community education, and materials for mass media programs, The act could
support interaction among existing State environmental education programs, such as those
in Wisconsin and Minnesota, and encourage
the establishment of new programs in other
States. The Department of Education could provide consulting services to school districts to
develop education programs.
An attempt to establish additional environmental education legislation might be opposed
because of the trend to reduce the Federal Government’s role in education and to rely more
on State and private sector initiatives. Therefore, it could be argued that private organizations, such as the Center for Environmental
Education, are the appropriate agents to increase public awareness. It could also be argued that Federal agencies are already educating the public about environmental issues and
could easily include biological diversity in their
programs without new legislation. Besides, new
This act was repealed by Public Lawr 97-35 in 1981, and the
I)epartment of Education has requested no funds for environmental education in its 1987 budget.
legislation would require additional appropriations, and in a time of budgetary constraints,
funding requests for conservation education
programs would probably be opposed.
Option 2.2: Amend the International Security
and Development Act of 1980 to increase the
awareness of the American public about international diversity conservation issues that
affect the United States.
Even more difficult than increasing the public’s awareness of domestic issues in biological diversity is increasing their awareness of
the relevance of diversity loss in other countries. In addition to humanitarian and ethical
reasons, maintaining diversity in other countries benefits the United States by sustaining
biological resources needed for American agriculture, pharmacology, and biotechnology industries, and by sustaining natural resources
necessary for commerce and economic development.
Maintaining biological diversity for security
and quality of life enhancement, and the wisdom of incorporating such issues into U.S. foreign assistance efforts, are justification for Congress to promote public awareness of the global
nature of the problem.
Mechanisms for educating the public about
such international issues are already in place.
Specifically, several nongovernmental organizations (NGOS) have international conservation
operations. A coalition of these groups actively
participated in the U.S. Interagency Task Force
on biological diversity that formulated the U.S.
Strategy on the Conservation of Biological Diversity in Developing Countries. As a group,
they have identified public education as a major role for NGOs.
The grassroots approach of NGOs is conducive to heightening public awareness, as illustrated by the support for programs to alleviate famine in Africa. Recognizing the potential
of NGOs to stimulate public awareness and discussion of the political, economic, technical,
and social factors relating to world hunger and
poverty, Congress amended the International
Security and Development Cooperation Act of
Ch. I—Summary and Options for Congress
1980 with Title III, Section 316, to further the
goals of Section 103.3
This amendment provides NGOs with BidenPell matching grants to support programs that
educate U.S. citizens about the links between
American progress and progress in developing countries. The Agency for International Development (AID) has used these grants mainly
to promote American understanding of the
problems faced by farmers in developing countries and how resolution of those problems benefits Americans. Recently, use of the grants has
been broadened to include public education on
international environmental issues, Congress
could encourage this action by expressing its
approval during oversight hearings or by further amending the International Security and
Development Cooperation Act specifically to
authorize support for education programs on
environmental issues, especially on biological
diversity.
Increase the Nation’s Ability To
Maintain Biological Diversity
The ability to maintain biological diversity
depends on the availability of applicable technologies that are useful and affordable and on
programs designed to apply these technologies
to clearly identified needs. Thus, increasing the
Nation’s ability to maintain diversity will require an improved system for identifying needs
and for developing or adapting technologies
and programs to address these needs.
At present, technologies and programs are
not sufficient to prevent further erosion of biological resources. The problem of diversity loss
has been recognized relatively recently, and scientists have just begun to focus attention on
‘Sm. 103, entitled ‘‘Agriculture, Rural De\’elopment and NLIri t ion, re[;ognizes that the majority of people in de~’eloping
(,ou nt rles 1 i~fe in rural areas and close to subsisten(;e. It authoriz(:s the I)resident to furnish assistance to alleviate hunger and
mal nut rit ion, enharr(:e the capacity of rural people, and to he] p
(. reate [) rod u(, t it’e on- and off-farm ern plojment. Sec, 315 en(:ourages pri i’at e a n[l k’ol LI n ta rk’ or~a n izat ions to fac I 1 i tate ti ] (1 [;~i)rea(l ~)uh] i{, (1 i s(; ussion, a nal}~ is, and re~’ie~~ of th[> issl}(;~ of
wor](] hunger, It espec ial]j’ (:a]]s for Increased pub] ic a~~’areness
of th (; pol it i(, a 1, fx, ono rn 1(,, te(. hnl(:al, and so(:ial factors aff(!(,t] ng h u ngt; r a n(l peter-t}.
t
15
it. Progress is slow partly because basic research is poorly funded, and institutions are
not organized to follow-up basic research with
synthesis of results, technology development,
and technology transfer. The last reason implies a need for goal-oriented research.
All too often, the Nation’s current research
programs related to biological diversity do not
have a goal-oriented approach. Institutional reward systems and prestige factors deter many
scientists from engaging in work that translates
basic science into practical tools. Several Federal agencies support basic biology and ecology research, but too little support exists for
synthesis of the research into technologies.
Improved links between research and management systems, that is, technology transfer,
can increase efficiency, effectiveness, and ability for maintaining diversity, For example, understanding how to maintain and propagate
wild endangered species has been preceded by
efforts to maintain domestic species. Perhaps
the most dramatic linkage is embryo transfer
technology developed for livestock now being
adapted for endangered wildlife, Similarly,
plant storage technologies developed for agricultural varieties, such as cryogenics and tissue culture, may be valuable tools for maintaining rare or threatened wild plant species, even
if only as backup collections.
FINDING 3: Current technologies are insufficient to prevent further erosion of biological
resources. Thus, increasing the Nation’s ability to maintain biological diversity will require acceleration of basic research as well
as research in development and implementation of resource management technologies.
Most resource management technologies
were developed to meet narrow needs. Onsite
technologies are generally directed toward a
particular population or species, and offsite
technologies are generally directed toward
organisms of economic importance. This restricted focus of basic research and technology development is not sufficient to meet the
broad goal of maintaining diversity, given the
number of species involved and the time and
funds available.
16 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
To accelerate research and application of
diversity-conserving technologies, a shift of emphasis is necessary in research funding. Agencies that fund or conduct research (e.g., the
National Science Foundation (NSF) and the
Agricultural Research Service of the USDA)
generally do not focus on applying research to
technology development; they usually are oriented toward supporting basic research. For
example, research funds are available for descriptive studies of population genetics but not
for studies on applications of genetic theory to
onsite population management. Scientists are
rewarded for research that tests hypotheses
relatively quickly and for publication of research results in academic journals. These incentives discourage broad, long-term studies
and neglect analyzing research results to develop technology systems.
Another avenue to increasing the ability to
maintain diversity is to encourage development
and implementation of programs by private
organizations, Although many private efforts
are not defined in terms of diversity conservation per se, activities to conserve aspects of
diversity (i.e., ecosystems, wild species, agricultural crops, and livestock) have had significant impact. These efforts are not likely to replace public or national programs, but they
could bean integral part of the Nation’s attempt
to maintain its biological heritage.
Option 3.I: Direct the National Science Foundation to establish a program for conservation biology.
The field of conservation biology seeks to develop scientific principles and then apply those
principles to developing technologies for diversity maintenance, Recently, the development of
this discipline has gained momentum through
the establishment of study programs at some
universities and the formation of a Society of
Conservation Biology, with its own professional
journal. Nevertheless, conservation biology is
only beginning to be recognized by the academic community as a legitimate discipline. No
research funds support it explicitly. Therefore,
few scientists can afford to conduct innovative
conservation biology research,
Current funding for research and technology
development in conservation biology is negligible, in large part because NSF considers it
to be too applied, while other government agencies consider it to be too theoretical. Congress
could encourage scientists to specialize in conservation biology by establishing within NSF
a separate conservation biology research program that would support the broad spectrum
of basic and applied research directed at developing and applying science and technology
to biological diversity conservation.
To enhance interprogram links, this program
could fund studies that integrate onsite and offsite methods—at the ecosystem, species, and
genetic levels. Such a program would also bring
much needed national recognition, research
funding, and scientific expertise to the field of
conservation biology. This support would accelerate its acceptance and growth within the scientific community and the development of new
principles and technology,
Current statutory authority of NSF would
cover such a program, NSF programs are supposed to support both basic and applied scientific research relevant to national problems involving public interest; the maintenance of
biological diversity is such a problem.
NSF might resist establishing such a program,
because NSF views conservation biology as a
mission-oriented activity. Since conservation
biology includes technology development, NSF
might view a diversity program as a potentially
dangerous precedent to its role as the Nation’s
major supporter of basic research. Furthermore, NSF might argue that a new research program is not needed because its Division of Biotic Systems and Resources already supports
about 60 basic research projects that address
biological diversity issues. These projects, however, largely ignore the social, economic, political, and management aspects of biological
diversity, and conservation is usually of secondary importance to the projects,
An alternative to establishing an NSF program could be to enhance or redirect existing
programs in other agencies to promote research
in diversity maintenance. The Institute of
Ch. l—Summary and Options for Congress
Museum Services (IMS), a federally sponsored
program, already provides a small amount of
funding for research on both onsite and offsite
diversity maintenance. IMS supports activities
from ecosystem surveys to captive breeding.
However, the principal focus of IMS is public
education, and its small budget is spread over
a wide range of programs (e. g., art museums
and historic collections), many of which are unrelated to biological research. Thus, IMS would
be unable, with its current funding, to take
greater responsibility for technology development; new appropriations would be necessary.
Development and application of diversityconserving technologies could also be funded
through other Federal agencies’ research programs. Congress could encourage appropriate
agencies to increase emphasis on development
of diversity technology. One source of funding
is through the USDA Competitive Research
Grants Office (C RGO). At present, the only research related to genetic resources funded by
USDA-CRGO is in the area of molecular genetics. As a result, little funding is available for
scientists seeking to conduct research in germplasm preservation, maintenance, evaluation,
and use.
Option 3.2: Establish a National Endowment
for Biological Diversity.
Congress could establish a National Endowment for Biological Diversity to fund private
organizations in research, education, training,
and maintenance programs that support the
conservation of biological diversity, Currently,
no central institution funds such efforts.
Efforts, however piecemeal, of private organizations and individuals are currently making significant contributions to the maintenance of the Nation’s diversity. Frequently, they
undertake activities that Federal and State agencies cannot or do not address. Through their
special interests, these groups as a whole also
play a major role in raising public awareness
and concern about the loss of diversity. In this
way, they increase the constituency backing
government programs that maintain natural
areas as well as those that collect and safeguard
17
genetic resources.’ Funding, however, is a
major constraint for nearly all these private
activities. A program of small grants with a ceiling of perhaps $25,000 per grant (similar to the
grants awarded by IMS) could make a substantial contribution to the shoestring budgets of
these small organizations and thus enhance national efforts to maintain biological diversity
at relatively little cost.
A National Endowment for Biological Diversity could provide funds to private organizations to carry out the following:
support research and application of methods to conserve biological diversity,
award fellowships and grants for training,
foster and support education programs to
increase public understanding and appreciation of biological diversity, and
buy necessary equipment such as small
computers.
This national endowment could be created by
amending the act that authorizes other national
endowment (of arts and humanities) programs.
The National Foundation on Arts and Humanities Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-209) declares
that the encouragement and support of national
progress is of Federal concern and supports
scholarships, research, the improvement of
education facilities, and encouragement of
greater public awareness,
A major constraint to establishing an endowment is the availability of funds during this
period of severe budget cutbacks. However,
even a small program could significantly encourage private sector initiatives in diversity
maintenance. Thus, the total amount needed
for such an endowment could be modest, and
it might be feasible to use only startup funds
and a partial contribution from the Federal Government and raise the remainder of the endowment from private sector contributions,
4
For further discussion, see U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Grassroots Conservation of Biological Diversity in the United States, Background Paper #1, OTA-BP-F-38
(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, February
1986].
18 Technologies
●
To
Maintain
Biological
Diversity
FINDING 4: Many Federal agencies sponsor
diversity maintenance programs that are well
designed but not fully effective in achieving
their objectives because of inadequate funding and personnel, lack of links to other programs, or lack of complementary programs
in related fields.
Much is already being done to maintain certain aspects of diversity in the United States,
but efforts are constrained by shrinking budgets
and personnel. And as noted earlier, the programs addressing biological diversity are piecemeal rather than comprehensive or strategic.
Whether or not Congress chooses to promote
a comprehensive strategy for diversity maintenance, specific attention is needed to remedy
the major gaps and inadequacies in existing
programs.
Option 4.1: Provide increased funding to existing programs for maintenance of diversity.
A number of governmental programs for diversity maintenance already exist, some because of congressional mandates. Yet the full
potential of some of those programs has not
been realized because funding is insufficient.
Two such programs are the National Plant
Germplasm System (NPGS) and the Endangered
Species Program, though others would also benefit from higher levels of funding.
The NPGS of the Agricultural Research Service has functioned for years on severely limited
funds and, consequently, is in danger of losing
some of the storehouse of plant germplasm.
This desperate situation is best illustrated by
the National Seed Storage Laboratory (NSSL],
which is expected to exceed its storage capacity in 2 years. At the same time, NSSL is being
pressured to increase collection and maintenance of wild plant germplasm. NPGS is attempting to respond to various criticisms about
its effectiveness, but progress has been slow
because of lack of funds and personnel. The
1986 appropriation for germplasm work is approximately $16 million, but to support current
programs adequately would cost about $40 million (1981 dollars) annua]ly.
.
—
Similarly underfunded and understaffed is
the Endangered Species Program of the Fish
and Wildlife Service. A review of this program
shows a substantial and growing backlog of important work. The rate of proposing species for
the threatened and endangered list is so slow
that a few candidates (e.g., Texas Henslow’s
sparrow) may have become extinct while awaiting listing. Critical habitat has been determined
for only one-fourth of the listed species, and
recovery plans have been approved for only
some of the listed species.
Congress could provide adequate funding for
these and other programs to achieve their goals
in maintaining diversity. NPGS could, as a re-
sult, increase the viability of stored germplasm
through more frequent testing and regeneration of accessions. NSSL could increase its efficiency by expanding storage capacity and
adopting new technologies. For example, cryogenic storage could be used to reduce maintenance cost and space, thereby enabling a larger
collection of germplasm. Likewise, the Endangered Species Program would be able to assess
candidate species faster and to develop and implement recovery plans for those already listed
species.
Option 4.2: Amend appropriate legislation to
improve the link between onsite and offsite
maintenance programs.
Coordination between onsite and offsite programs is inadequate. By amending appropriate legislation, Congress could encourage the
complementary use of onsite and offsite technologies. For example, the Endangered Species
Act could be amended to encourage use of captive breeding and propagation techniques, Such
methods have been used with some endangered
species, such as the red wolf, whooping crane,
and grizzly bear. But for other species, such
as the California condor, black-footed ferret,
and dusky seaside sparrow, recovery plans do
not exist or were too long delayed, Recovery
plans for endangered species seldom include
the use of offsite techniques, partly because captive breeding and propagation are outside the
Ch. l—Summary and Options for Congress
scope of natural resource management agencies; rather, they are in the province of zoos,
botanic gardens, arboretums, and agricultural
research stations.
By mandating that recovery plans give specific consideration to captive breeding and
propagation, Congress could encourage links
between separate programs. The approach
could be broadened to encourage cooperative
efforts between public and private organizations working offsite and onsite to conserve ecosystem and genetic diversity. A model for such
efforts exists in the emerging cooperation between the Center for plant Conservation (network of regional botanic institutions) and NSSL,
Option 4.3: Establish programs to fill gaps in
current efforts to maintain biological diversity.
One of the most obvious gaps in domestic programs is the lack of a formal national program
to maintain domestic animal genetic resources.
Congress could establish a program to coordinate activities for animal germplasm conservation, thereby reducing duplication and encouraging complementary actions. Such a
program could be established through clarification of the Agricultural Research Service
mandate. An animal program could parallel the
National Plant Germplasm System, but other
structures should be explored as well. Alternatively, a separate program established to be
semi-independent from government agencies
might serve a greater variety of interests. The
best structure for such a program is at present
unclear.
A congressional hearing could be held to
identify the main issues in establishing an animal germplasm program and to discuss alternative structures and scope of such a program,
Coordination of international efforts is also
needed to preserve the diversity of agriculturally important animals. Some efforts have already been made, and the concept of an international program is gaining support, Congress
(IBPGR). An IBAGR could set standards and
coordinate the exchange and storage of germplasm between countries and address related
issues such as quarantine regulations. It could
foster onsite management of genetic resources
for both minor and major breeds.
Another major gap is protection of U.S. ecosystem diversity. Numerous types of ecosystems, such as tall grass prairie, are not included
in the Federal public lands system. Congress
could direct Federal land-managing agencies
to include representative areas of major ecosystems in protected areas.
One vehicle for this is the Research Natural
Area (RNA) system. Since 1927, the RNA system,
with the cooperation of multiple Federal agencies and private groups, has developed the most
comprehensive coverage of natural ecosystem
types in the United States. RNAs, however, are
small scale and are mainly established on land
already in public ownership. Therefore, the
RNA system, may not be able to cover the major
ecosystems without some additional mechanism to acquire land not already in the Federal domain, possibly through land exchanges.
Nevertheless, Congress could recognize the
RNA system as a mechanism and direct agencies to work toward filling the program gaps.
Enhance the Knowledge Base
Developing effective strategies to maintain
diversity depends on knowing the components
of biological systems and how’ they interact. Information on the status and trends in biological systems is also needed for public policy. The
first step in developing such information is fundamental descriptions of the \arious components—species, communities, and ecosystems.
Data can then be analyzed to determine how
best to maintain biological diversity. More specifically, baseline data are needed for the following activities:
●
could encourage the establishment of an Inter-
national Board for Animal Genetic Resources
(IBAGR). This program could parallel the In-
ternational Board for Plant Genetic Resources
19
●
assessing the abundance, condition, and
distribution of species, communities, and
ecosystems;
disclosing changes that may be taking
place;
20 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversify
●
●
monitoring the effectiveness of resource
management plans once they are implemented; and
determining priorities for areas that merit
special efforts to manage natural diversity
that would benefit from protection, and
that deserve particular attention to avoid
biological disruption or to initiate mitigative actions.
To be effective and efficient, the acquisition,
dissemination, and use of data must proceed
within the context of defined objectives. For
the most part, biological data used in diversity
maintenance programs has been acquired without the direction of a coordinating goal. Not
surprisingly, these data are widely scattered
and generally incompatible. Geographical and
taxonomical data gaps exist. Some taxonomic
groups are ignored in field inventories, while
others, particularly plants and animals with
economic or recreational value, are monitored
extensively. Finally, there is little data on the
social, economic, and institutional pressures
on biological diversity. Consequently, available
data cannot be used easily in decisionmaking
directed at maintaining biological diversity.
FINDING 5: Congress and other policymakers
need improved information on biological
diversity. Such information cannot be supplied without improvements in data collection, maintenance, and synthesis.
Policy makers need comprehensive information on the ramifications and scope of diversity loss. Information provided by the scientific
community should be a basis for resource policy and management decisions. To serve in the
context of public policy, data should satisfy four
criteria:
1. The data must be of high quality; that is,
it must meet accepted standards of objectivity, completeness, reproducibility, and
accuracy.
2. The data must have value; that is, it must
address a worthwhile problem.
3. The data must be applicable; that is, it must
be useful to decisionmakers responsible for
making policy,
4. The data must be legitimate; that is, it must
carry a widely accepted presumption of accuracy and authority.
Much information is already available but not
in an assimilated form useful to decisionmakers. Data on the status and trends of biological diversity are scattered among Federal,
State, and foreign agencies and private organizations. Consolidation of these data is necessary to identify gaps, to provide a comprehensive understanding of the status of the
Earth’s biota, and especially to define priorities for action.
Option 5.1: Establish a small clearinghouse for
data on biological diversity.
The purpose of a clearinghouse would be to
coordinate data collection, synthesis, and dissemination efforts. It could serve government
agencies, private organizations, corporations,
and individuals, The clearinghouse could perform the following functions:
●
●
●
●
survey and catalog existing Federal, State,
private, and international databases on biological resources;
evaluate the quality of databases;
provide small grants and personnel support services to strengthen existing databases; and
Publish annual reports on the status and
needs of the biological data system.
Success in these endeavors would accelerate
progress toward several objectives:
setting of priorities for conservation action;
2. monitoring trends;
3. developing an alert system for adverse
trends;
4. identifying gaps and reviewing needs to
fill them;
5, facilitating development of environmental
impact assessments; and
6. evaluating options, actions, and successes
and failures.
1.
As a data-coordinating body, the clearinghouse could guide efforts to collect data on biological diversity, which will provide a compre-
—
Ch. l—Summary and Options for Congress c 21
hensive perspective that Federal agencies
cannot supply because of their varied mandates. Access to previously inaccessible data
would be facilitated, which should reduce
duplication of efforts. By evaluating the qualit y of information, the clearinghouse could help
eliminate a general distrust among users of
other databases. Access to a diversity of databases means that no standardized system is
forced on data users, which has been a formidable obstacle to database integration and use.
The clearinghouse would not necessarily
maintain its own primary database. Commercial databases in the public domain could be
included in the system, and proprietary and
other limited-access databases could be reviewed regularly, with permission. Database
enhancements to cover gaps could be funded
by small grants. The clearinghouse’s information systems could be made available through
a library service and special searches. It could
charge appropriate fees for all its services.
The same clearinghouse could assess information on biological diversity in international
databases. It could provide a small amount of
financial and personnel aid to help international organizations improve their databases.
In addition, it could work with development
assistance agencies to support the participation
of other countries’ national databases in such
international and regional networks as the
International Union for the Conservation of
Nature and Natural Resources Conservation
Monitoring Center, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization’s
(UNESCO) Man and the Biosphere Program
(MAB), and The Nature Conservancy International.
Possible objections to such a clearinghouse
include the following: 1) that lack of a uniform
system of data collection for the United States
would hinder national data analysis and use,
and 2) that evaluating the quality of other agencies’ databases would be politically sensitive.
Questions such as the size, administrative structure, and cost of a clearinghouse program must
be answered as well. Because it would not maintain its own primary database, however, such
a clearinghouse would not need to be a largescale operation.
Option 5.2: Provide funding to enhance the existing network of natural heritage conservation data centers.
A number of State governments, aided by The
Nature Conservancy (TNC), have already established a network of Natural Heritage Data
Centers in many States and in some foreign
countries. These centers collect and organize
biological data specifically for diversity conservation. All centers use a standardized format to collect and synthesize data. The result
has been a vehicle to exchange and to aggregate
information about what is happening to biological resources at State and local levels and,
more recently, around the Nation and across
the Western Hemisphere.
Funding for these data centers comes from
a combination of Federal, State, and private (including corporate) sources. Progress has been
limited, however, by the amount of available
funds. Congress could enhance these efforts by
providing a consistent source of additional
funding. By increasing support for the Fed-
eral-State-private partnership, the action by
Congress could reinforce the application of
standard methods, enhance interagency compatibility, improve the efficiency of biological
data collection and management, and facilitate
the free exchange of useful information, Moreover, the partnership could accelerate the rate
at which data centers spread to the remaining
States and nations.
An appropriation of $10 million per year, for
example, could be divided among several data
center functions: supporting central office
activities in research, development, documentation, and training; conducting taxonomic
work; and matching grants from States and
other participants, One source of funding could
be the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Although this fund is used mainly for land acquisition, it could also support preacquisition activities such as identification of lands to be
acquired. Data centers are key to such activities.
This option does not necessarily replace the
need for an information clearinghouse because
diverse databases and information systems will
22 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
continue to operate. The two options could be
complementary. Some clearinghouse functions
might be handled by TNC, but others, such as
facilitating improvement of and access to data
sources, could be best handled by a separate
entity that functions much like a library.
Support International Initiatives
To Maintain Biological Diversity
Most biological resources belong to individual nations. However, many benefits from diversity accrue internationally. American agriculture, for example, depends on foreign
sources for genetic diversity to keep ahead of
constantly evolving pests and pathogens. And
many bird populations important to controlling
pests in the United States overwinter in the
forests of Latin America.
Solutions to problems that cause diversity loss
must be implemented locally, but many of these
will be effective only if supported by international political and technical cooperation. Examples of such problems include the international trade in rare wildlife, the greenhouse
effect of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere, the
effects of acid rain on freshwater lakes and
forests, and damage to oceans by pollution and
overfishing. The United States has the political prestige needed to initiate international cooperation, and it leads the world in much of
the technical expertise needed, such as fundamental biology and information processing.
Thus, the United States has both motive and
ability to participate and to provide leadership
in international conservation efforts.
The United States has historically played a
leading role in promoting international conservation initiatives, and precedence exists for extending this leadership to an international or
global approach for conserving biological diversity. A variety of international conventions and
multilateral programs already specify biological
diversity as an aspect of broader conservation
objectives (e. g., biosphere reserve program).
Such internationally recognized obligations can
be important policy tools in concert with technical, administrative, and financial measures
to encourage programs for conserving diver-
sity. Obligations confirmed by international
conventions provide conservation authorities
with the justification frequently needed to
strengthen their national programs.
FINDING 6: The United States has begun to abdicate leadership in international conservation efforts, with the result that international
initiatives are weakened or stalled in the tropical regions where diversity losses are most
severe. Renewed U.S. commitment could accelerate the pace of international achievements in conservation.
The United States has been a model and an
active leader in international conservation activity. The movement toward establishment of national parks worldwide grew out of the United
States. In the early 1970s, the United States was
a leader in international environmental and resource deliberations, notably in the 1972 UNsponsored Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment. U.S. leadership, for example, played an important role in establishing
the United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP), and in securing the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of
Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the World
Heritage Convention, all important foundations
of current international efforts to support maintenance of biological diversity.
However, U.S. support for these kinds of initiatives has declined. The retrenchment in support reflects austerity measures as well as dissatisfaction with the performance of specific
international organizations. Effective international projects, such as UNESCO’s Man and
the Biosphere Program, have suffered by association.
U.S. support of international conservation efforts is pivotal in that the United States has
greater resources and stronger technical abilities than most other countries to address the
complex issue of diversity loss. Without greater
initiative and access to resources, many countries will be unable to arrest loss of diversity
within their borders. Under existing conditions,
countries that harbor the greatest diversity are
expected to devote a large part of their national
Ch. l—Summary and Options for Congress
resources to address the problem, even though
benefits commonly extend beyond their countries. It would seem equitable for those countries that benefit, including the United States,
to share more fully in efforts to conserve diversity in countries otherwise unable to do so,
Option 6.1: Sustain or increase support of international organizations and conventions.
International conservation initiatives are important tools for long-term conservation of biological diversity. Yet, existing international
agreements are often poorly implemented because of lack of adequate administrative machinery (e. g., adequately funded and staffed secretariats), lack of financial support for on-theground programs (e.g., equipment, training, and
staf~, and lack of reciprocal obligations that
could serve as incentives to comply.
An exception is CITES, which has mechanisms to facilitate reciprocal trade controls and
a technical secretariat. The existence of this machinery in large part accounts for the relative
success of this convention. The United States
has been globally influential in supporting
CITES and has reinforced it through national
legislation that prohibits import into the United
States of wildlife taken or exported in violation
of another country’s laws. The amendment to
the Lacey Act of 1900 (Public Law 97-79) in 1981
backs efforts of other nations seeking to conserve their wildlife resources, This law has been
a powerful tool for wildlife conservation throughout the world because the United States is a major importer of wildlife specimens and products.
U.S. contributions to international conservation programs have been diminishing recently.
The appropriation cycle for funding such programs has been an annual tug-of-war between
Congress and the Administration. The budget
of the World Heritage Convention in 1985 was
$824,000. The United States, one of the major
forces behind the Convention’s founding, usually contributes at least one-fourth of the budget. In the fiscal years of 1979 to 1982, U.S. contributions averaged $300,000. But from fiscal
year 1982 to 1984, the United States made no
contributions. But in fiscal year 1985, $238,903
●
23
was contributed. In fiscal year 1986, $250,000
had been appropriated, but the amount was cut
to $239,000 under Gramm-Rudman-Hollings
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act.
Congress could maintain or increase U.S.
support of international organizations and programs in several ways. Congress could ensure
that these organizations receive adequate annual appropriations and could conduct oversight hearings to encourage the Administration
to carry out the intent of Congress.
One possible drawback associated with contributions to international intergovernmental
organizations is their lack of accountability.
Relative to bilateral assistance channels, the
United States has little control over how or to
whom intergovernmental organizations direct
their resources. The consequence is that U.S.
funds go to countries that are unfriendly or even
adversarial to the United States and its policies.
It should be recognized, however, that many
international activities specific to maintenance
of biological diversity, especially activities of
UNEP, UNESCO-MAB, and IBPGR, operate
largely within scientific channels, which tends
to reduce the political overtones inherent in intergovernmental organizations. Also, objectivity can be enhanced in programs willing to
establish protocols. For example, establishing
criteria to determine which areas qualify for
biosphere reserve status or which unique areas
warrant (natural] World Heritage status provides objectivity in directing resources.
Congress could also encourage or direct Federal agencies to assign technical personnel to
international organizations or to the secretariats of the various conventions. This option
could be difficult to implement without legislating special allowances for agency personnel
ceilings and budgets. Otherwise, agencies will
be reluctant to assign personnel overseas in
light of a shrinking Federal work force and
budget.
Option 6.2: Continue to direct U.S. directors of
multilateral development banks (MDBs) to do
the following: l) press for more specific and
24 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
systematic MDB efforts to promote sound environmental and resource policies akin to the
World Bank’s wildland policy, Z) work to
make projects consistent with international
and recipient country environmental policies
and regulations, and 3) seek to involve recipient country environmental officials and nongovernmental organizations in project formulation processes.
A significant part of all international development assistance efforts are funded by the
World Bank and regional MDBs. Thus, these
organizations are uniquely situated to influence
environmental aspects of development, including the maintenance of biological diversity. In
fact, the MDBs’ priorities and policies can be
the single most important influence on the development model adopted by developing countries. MDB agricultural, rural development, and
energy programs all have profound effects on
biological resources in developing countries.
In 1986, the World Bank promulgated a new
policy on the treatment of wildlands in development projects. The bank recognizes that although further conversion of some natural land
and water areas to more intensive uses will be
necessary to meet development objectives,
other pristine areas may yield benefits to
present and future generations if maintained
in their natural state. These are areas that, for
example, may provide important environmental services or essential habitats to endangered species. To prevent the loss of these wildland values, the policy specifies that the Bank
will normally decline to finance projects in
these areas and instead prefer projects on already converted lands. Conversion of less important wildlands must be justified and compensated by financing the preservation of an
ecologically similar area in a national park or
nature reserve, or by some other mitigative
measures. The policy provides systematic guidance and criteria for deciding which wildlands
are in need of protection, which projects may
need wildland measures, and what types of
wildland measures should be provided.
In 1980, the World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, and
six other multilateral signed a “Declaration
of Environmental Policies and Procedures Relating to Economic Development,” and formed
the Committee on International Development
Institutions on the Environment (CIDIE), under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme. The agencies agreed to
systematic environmental analysis of activities
funded for environmental programs and projects. However, a subsequent study found that
these policy statements by the MDBs were not
effectively translated into action. Criticisms of
how well MDBs implement environmental policies remain strong. And it is too soon to determine the effectiveness of the World Bank’s wildland policy.
The United States is limited in its ability to
effect change at MDBs because the banks are
international institutions run collectively by
member nations. Since the United States is a
large contributor, however, it does have considerable influence on bank policies, which are
determined by boards of directors,
The primary way Congress affects policies
of these banks is by requesting that the U.S. executive directors—who are responsible to the
Secretary of the Treasury—carry out congressionally approved policies. These requests may
be made at oversight hearings or in the language
of appropriation legislation, For instance, the
1986 House Committee on Appropriations Report stated guidelines for the U.S. executive directors (Sec. 539), which included the addition
of relevant staff, development of management
plans, and commitment to increase the proportion of programs supporting environmentally
beneficial projects. To continue this guidance,
Congress could require the U.S. executive directors of MDBs to encourage the adoption of
a policy similar to the World Bank’s wildlands
policy statement.
FINDING 7: Constraints on international exchange of genetic resources could jeopardize
future agricultural production and progress
in biotechnologies. Such constraints are becoming more likely because developing countries with sovereignty over most such resources believe that the industrial nations
have benefited at their expense. Debates on
Ch. l—Summary and Options for Congress
—
the issue could benefit from a more informed
and less impassioned approach.
All countries benefit from the exchange of
genetic resources, Many of the major crops currently grown in various countries have originated elsewhere. Coffee, for example, is native
to the highlands of Ethiopia. Yet, today, it represents an important source of income for
farmers in other parts of Africa, Asia, and Latin
America. Maize, originally from Central America, is grown as a staple crop in North America and Africa, Countries continue to depend
on access to germplasm from outside their
borders to maintain or enhance agricultural
productivity. Political and economic considerations, however, are now prompting national
governments to restrict access to their germplasm, Behind these efforts is an implicit desire by some countries to obtain greater compensation for the genetic resources that are
currently made freely available.
The International Board for Plant Genetic Resources (IBPGR) is the main international institution dealing with the offsite conservation
of plant genetic diversity. Established in 1974,
it promotes the establishment of national programs and regional centers for the conservation of plant germplasm, It has provided training facilities, carried out research in techniques
of plant germplasm conservation, supported
numerous collection missions, and provided
limited financial assistance for conservation facilities. However, it does not operate any germplasm storage facilities itself.
Due in part to the success of IBPGR in focusing attention on the need to conserve genetic
diversity, the issue of germplasm exchange has
become embroiled in political controversy.
Some critics regard the IBPGR as implicitly
working for agribusiness interests of industrial
nations, Central to the issue is a perception on
the part of many developing countries that they
have been freely giving genetic resources to industrial nations which, in turn, have profited
at their expense.
This controversy led the United Nations Food
and Agricultural Organization (FAO] to sponsor an International Undertaking on Plant
●
25
Genetic Resources. The undertaking proposed
an international germplasm conservation network under the auspices of FAO. It declared
that each nation has a duty to make all plant
genetic materials—including advanced breeding materials—freely available, IBPGR was to
continue its current work, but it would be monitored by FAO.
FAO then established the Commission on
Plant Genetic Resources to review progress in
germplasm conservation. The commission held
its first meeting in March 1985, with the United
States present only as an observer. Much of the
discussion focused on the concerns expressed
in the undertaking and on onsite conservation.
The continuing controversy includes charges
that the current international system enables
countries to restrict access to germplasm in international collections for political and economic reasons. Also of concern to some parties is the impact of plant patenting legislation.
Current charges and arguments in the FAO
forum tend to oversimplify the complexity of
how germplasm is incorporated into plant varieties and to distort the actual nature of genetic
exchange between and among industrial and
developing countries. Restrictions on export of
germplasm, for example, appear to be more
common for developing countries. Nevertheless, the perception of inequity in the current
situation is real, and it could result in increasing national restrictions on access to and export of germplasm. Further, the issue of control over genetic resources could become a
significant stumbling block to establishing international commitment and cooperation in the
maintenance of overall biological diversity.
Option 7.1: Closely examine the actions available to the United States regarding the issue
of international exchange of genetic resources.
Efforts to address the conservation and exchange of plant genetic resources in the FAO
forum have been controversial. It is not yet apparent how the United States should act in this
regard. Congress could give increased attention to determining what options are available.
26 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
One possible action is for Congress to request
that an independent organization, such as the
National Academy of Sciences, study this issue. In fact, NAS has already indicated interest in investigating this as a part of its current
3-year study of global genetic resources. Such
a study could draw on other agencies and individuals with interest and expertise in this area
to define several general actions the United
States might take in regard to international exchange of genetic resources and the consequences associated with it.
Another option is to favor the status quo, ignoring the criticisms and avoiding the risk that
new political actions might disrupt effective scientific working arrangements. A practical international flow of germplasm is likely to continue in the future, with or without the formal
international arrangements envisioned by the
FAO undertaking. In time, the political issues
may be resolved equitably without pushing nations into conflicts over breeders’ rights or access to genetic materials.
Another possibility would be for the United
States to associate with the FAO Commission
on Plant Genetic Resources. U.S. influence
might strengthen the international commitment
to free flow of germplasm and reduce the risk
that germplasm will increasingly be withheld
for political or economic reasons.
Unless Congress chooses to restrict plant
breeders’ rights in the United States, the U.S.
Government will be unable to join the undertaking without major reservations. Such a
change in domestic law seems politically unlikely, given domestic benefits provided by
plant breeders’ rights and the effective lobbying efforts of the seed industry. However, the
United States could consider renegotiating the
FAO undertaking to require a commitment to
grant global access to genetic resources—with
appropriate exceptions for certain privately
held materials—within the context of an internationally supported commitment to help countries conserve and develop their genetic resources. Parallel agreements also might be
developed for domestic animal, marine, and
microbial resources. Such agreements could
also define national and international obligations to collect and conserve the germplasm that
is being displaced by new varieties or by changing patterns of agricultural developments.
Finally, U.S. representatives could consider
promoting a discussion of genetic resource exchanges outside formal channels in an effort
to separate the technical issues from emotional
ones, The Keystone Center, an environmental
mediation organization, is exploring the possibility of conducting a policy dialog on this
topic in the near future.
Option 7.2: Affirm the U.S. commitment to the
free flow of germplasm through an amendment to the Export Administration Act.
Specific allegations have been made that the
United States has restricted the access to germplasm in national collections (at the National
Plant Germplasm System) for political reasons.
The government, however, maintains that it adheres to the principles of free exchange. ,
To reinforce recent executive affirmations of
the free flow of germ plasm, Congress could exempt the export of germplasm contained in national collections from Export Administration
Act restrictions or political embargoes imposed
for other reasons. Comparable provisions are
already included in this act with respect to
medicine and medical supplies (50 U.S. C. app.
sec. 2405 (g), as amended by Public Law 99-64,
July 12, 1985). Because this germplasm is a]ready accessible through existing mechanisms,
such a provision would only reaffirm the U.S.
position and remove from the current debate
the allegations of U.S. restrictions of access to
germplasm.
On the other hand, the process of amending
the act may generate support for restricting
germplasm—by excluding certain countries
from such an exemption. Restricting access in
such a manner would likely lead to an international situation counter to U.S. interests. In
such a case, no action would be preferable to
an amendment.
Ch, l—Summary and Options for Congress
Address Loss of Biological Diversity
in Developing Countries
The United States has a stake in promoting
the maintenance of biological diversity in developing countries. Many of these nations are
in regions where biological systems are highly
diverse, where pressures that degrade diversity
are generally most pronounced, and where the
capacity to forestall a reduction in diversity is
least well-developed, The rationale for assisting developing countries rests on: 1) recognition of the substantial existing and potential
benefits of maintaining a diversity of plants,
animals, and microbes; 2) evidence that degradation of specific ecosystems is undermining
the potential for economic development in a
number of regions; and 3) esthetic and ethical
motivations to avoid irreversible loss of unique
life forms.
The U.S. Congress, recognizing these interests, passed Section 119 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1983, specifying conservation of
biological diversity as a specific objective of
U.S. development assistance. The U.S. Agency
for International Development (AID), as the
principal agency providing development assistance, was given a mandate to implement this
policy, which reads in part:
In order to preserve biological diversity, the
President is authorized to furnish assistance to
countries in protecting and maintaining wildlife habitats and in developing sound wildlife
management and plant conservation programs.
Special effort should be taken to establish and
maintain wildlife sanctuaries, reserves, and
parks; to enact and enforce anti-poaching measures; and to identify, study, and catalog animal and plant species, especially in tropical
environments.
A review of AID initiatives since 1983 suggests that despite the formulation of a number
of policy documents, the agency lacks a strong
commitment to implementing the specific types
of projects identified in Section 119, This lack
of commitment is due to several factors, including: 1) a belief that the agency is already addressing biological diversity to the extent it
should, 2) reduced levels of budgets and staff
●
27
to initiate projects, and 3) an inadequate number of trained personnel to address conservation concerns generally.
Several questions arise in relation to the capacity and the appropriateness of U.S. commitments to support diversity conservation efforts
through bilateral development assistance. First,
it is unclear whether Section 119, as the principal legislation dealing with concerns over
diversity loss outside the United States, defines
U.S. interests too narrowly. Second, it is uncertain how Section 119 relates to the principal
goals of foreign assistance, as specified in section 101. Finally, questions remain concerning
the commitment of resources and personnel to
address U.S. interests in maintaining diversity
in developing countries,
FINDING 8: Existing legislation maybe inadequate and inappropriate to address U.S. interests in maintaining biological diversity in
developing countries.
Maintaining diversity will depend primarily
on onsite maintenance. The “special effort” initiatives identified in Section 119 are important
components of a comprehensive program. What
is not clear, however, is whether the emphasis
is appropriate within the context of U.S. bilateral development assistance. That is, establishing protected areas and supporting antipoaching measures can have adverse impacts
on populations that derive benefits from exploiting resources within a designated area. These
populations are characteristically among the
“poorest majority” intended to be the principal
beneficiaries of U.S. development assistance
(Sec. 101). However, demands of local populations (e.g., for fuelwood or agricultural land)
may threaten diversity and even the sustainability of the resource base on which they depend, It does, however, raise questions on the
appropriateness of supporting activities that
could place increased stress on these populations.
Second, existing legislation identifies concern over diversity loss separately from conversion of tropical forests and degradation of
environment and natural resources (Sec. 118
28 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
and 117, respectively). Clearly, these concerns
are interrelated, although not synonymous. It
is questionable whether such a distinction is
appropriate within the context of development
assistance legislation. An argument can be
made that U.S. development assistance should
approach diversity maintenance within the context of conservation—that is, as a wise use of
natural resources, as elaborated in the World
Conservation Strategy. In doing so, the objectives of diversity maintenance and development
interests could be made more compatible.
Finally, although Section 119 speaks of biological diversity, the thrust of the legislation addresses a narrower set of concerns–that of species extinction. While certainly a prominent
concern, and perhaps even the central motivation behind the legislation, it fails to address
the broader set of U.S. concerns over diversity
loss in developing countries. As noted earlier,
a focus on unique populations would be a more
appropriate, though more problematic, approach. This is particularly important with regard to preserving genetic resources of potential benefit to agriculture or industry, which
is the most strongly argued rationale for conserving biological diversity. Existing legislation
does not specifically identify these interests.
One specific consideration could be to resolve
potential conflicts of interests that exist in the
language of Section 119—that of emphasizing
the need to establish protected areas and poaching controls without specific reference to impacts on indigenous populations. Congress
could correct this potential conflict by adding
language to Section 119 such as, “Support for
biological diversity projects should be consistent with the interests, particular needs, and participation of local populations.” It is widely rec-
ognized that the viability of protected areas is
largely contingent on these provisions. Adding
such language would thus provide greater consistency within the objectives of FAA as well
as specify criteria that heighten chances of
project success.
In addition, Congress could recast the Zanguage of existing legislation to provide a fuller
accounting of U.S. interests in maintaining diversity in developing countries. Such changes
could expand from a focus on endangered species to the loss of biological systems, including ecosystems and genetic resources. Such an
effort might also emphasize practical aspects
of conservation initiatives of particular interest to developing countries and stress the goal
of promoting ability and initiatives of the countries themselves.
Option 8.1: Restructure existing sections of the
Foreign Assistance Act to reflect the full
scope of U.S. interests in maintaining biological diversity in developing countries.
Finally, Congress could combine those sections of FAA that deal with natural resources
and environmental issues to reflect the interrelatedness of these amendments. Provisions
The U.S. Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) comes
up for reauthorization in 1987. Major restructuring of the act is already being considered.
Revamping could provide an opportunity to recast certain provisions of the legislation to better account for U.S. interests in maintaining
diversity in developing countries.
could be made to account for specific concerns
over species extinctions currently emphasized
in Section 119. But approaches and concerns
reflected in these amendments are probably
best considered together, Provision of funding
within such a restructuring would also be important.
Providing for conservation of natural resources and the environment in general, and
of biological diversity and tropical forests in
particular, are important considerations in a
restructuring of FAA. Less clear, however, is
whether the language and disaggregation of
these interests is appropriate in the context of
bilateral development assistance.
FINDING 9: AID could benefit from additional
strategic planning and conservation expertise
in promoting biological diversity projects.
Congress has already taken steps to earmark
funds for biological diversity projects within
AID’s budget. The existing mechanisms within
the agency to identify and promote diversit y
—.—
—
Ch. l—Summary
projects are not well established, however. Because funding is minimal, it is all the more important to devise a strategy that allows priority
initiatives to be defined,
Environmental expertise within AID is slim.
In recent years, in-house expertise in this area
has declined, and that which does exist has been
severely overextended. Addressing biological
diversity will, therefore, require both increasing the number of AID staff with environmental
training and an increased reliance on expertise outside AID, in other government agencies
and in the private sector. AID has already taken
steps to cultivate this environmental expertise,
but further actions could be taken.
Option 9.1: Direct AID to adopt a more strategic approach in promoting initiatives for
maintenance of biological diversity.
The U.S. Strategy on the Conservation of Biological Diversity: An Interagency Task Force
Report to Congress was delivered to Congress
in February 1985, in response to provisions in
Section 119. A general criticism of the document was that although it contained 67 recommendations, it lacked any sense of priority or
indication of funding sources to undertake
these recommendations. In an attempt to apply the recommendations to specific agency
programs, AID drafted an Action Plan on Conserving Biological Diversity in Developing
Countries (January 1986). Comments received
from AID overseas suggest that problems exist
in translating the general principles and recommendations of an agency plan into specific
initiatives at the country level,
A more refined approach to addressing diversity interests within the agency may be required. Such an approach would seek to incorporate biological diversity concerns into AID
development activities at different levels of the
agency, ranging from general policy documents
at the agency level to more strategic efforts at
the regional bureau and mission levels,
At least two efforts could be considered at
the agency level. First, Congress could direct
AID to prepare a policy determination [PD) on
and Options for Congress 29
●
biological diversity. A PD would serve as a gen-
eral statement that maintaining diversity is an
explicit objective of the agency, In developing
a PD, AID should review provisions contained
in the recent World Bank wildlands policy
statement.
Existence of a PD could mean that consideration of diversity concerns would, where appropriate, become an integral part of sectoral programming and project design, Further, it would
require that projects be reviewed and evaluated
by the Bureau of Program and Policy Coordination for consistency with the objectives of
the PD. Because of the increase in bureaucratic
provisions this would create, the formulation
of a PD on diversity probably would not be well
received within AID.
A second effort is to establish a centrally
funded project within AID’s Bureau of Science
and Technology. AID has already developed
a concept paper along these lines as a prelude
to a more concrete project identification document, As conceived, the concept paper examines the possibility of establishing a biological
diversity project, One major benefit of such a
project would be the establishment of a focal
point for coordinating funding and technical
assistance on biological diversity. The Science
and Technology Bureau’s emphasis on technical assistance, research, training, and institutional development would make it the appropriate bureau for such a program. A constraint
to this approach is that biological diversity projects may continue to be separate rather than
an integral part of development programs.
The three regional bureaus of AID (i.e., Africa, Asia and Near East, and Latin America
and the Caribbean) could also prepare documents that identify important biological diversity initiatives in their regions, The Asia and
Near East Bureau, in fact, has already prepared
such a document that could be used in highlighting regional priorities, A reluctance to direct scarce funds to diversity projects, at the
expense of more traditional development projects, has limited the utility of the document to
date, Nevertheless, the development of such
reports for each regional bureau is considered
30 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
an effective way to identify priorities for existing diversity projects, especially given the earmarking of funds,
The most important focus of biological diversity strategies is at the mission level, where
projects are implemented. Congress has already
mandated that Country Development Strategy
Statements and other country-level documents
prepared by AID address diversity concerns.
Most missions, however, lack the expertise or
adequate access to expertise needed to address
this provision of Section 119 as amended.
Option 9.2: Direct AID to acquire increased conservation expertise in support of biological
diversity initiatives.
The ability of AID to promote biological diversity in developing countries is seriously undermined by its lack of personnel trained in environmental sciences. While true at the agency
headquarters, the problem is particularly acute
in its overseas missions. Although AID designates an environmental officer at each mission,
the person usually has little professional experience or training in the area, Often environmental duties are combined with numerous other
duties; few AID personnel are full-time environmental officers. Under these circumstances,
it is difficult to envision how AID can effectively promote biological diversity maintenance.
Congress could direct AID to recruit and hire
additional personnel with environmental science backgrounds or at a minimum provide increased training for existing staff The near-
term prospects for AID, however, point to a reduction in an already overworked staff, It seems
unlikely, therefore, that significant in-house
conservation expertise will be developed. Consequently, addressing biological diversity
within AID will depend on providing access
to conservation expertise within other government agencies and in the private sector. Even
drawing on outside expertise, AID will need
some increase in environmental officers to
manage and coordinate projects.
AID already draws on other government
agencies to participate in projects supporting
biological diversity maintenance. Mechanisms
such as Participating Agency Service Agreements (PASA) and Resource Services Support
Agreements (RSSA) allow interagency exchanges of experts and services. AID currently
has a RSSA with Fish and Wildlife Service for
the services of a technical advisor to handle biological diversity issues. These mechanisms
could be used to facilitate further access to conservation experts in other government agencies.
A biological diversity program could be established within the existing Forestry Support Program, for example. The Forestry Support Program is an RSSA between AID and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) to provide
technical assistance to AID in the area of forestry and natural resources. A diversity program would likely be an RSSA between AID,
the Department of the Interior, and USDA.
Such a program would provide AID missions
with access to conservation expertise within
the Department of the Interior, the USDA, and
through a roster of consultants.
A constraint to the RSSA and PASA is agency
personnel ceilings and the limited number of
personnel with international experience, In
light of a reduction of the Federal work force,
agencies may be reluctant to devote their staff
to nonagency projects. Although some Federal
programs have been successfully used in supporting AID projects, expertise within the private sector will also be needed to address AID’s
requirements.
The Peace Corps is also seen as having special potential to support biological diversity
projects. Cooperative agreements with the National park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service,
The Man in the Biosphere Program, and World
Wildlife Fund/U.S. have increased the Peace
Corps’ capacity and access to talent and training in this area. Another area of potential collaboration is between the Peace Corps and the
Smithsonian Institution, especially given the
Smithsonian’s newly established Biological
Diversity Program. Precedence exists for such
a cooperative relationship, in the form of the
Smithsonian-Peace Corps Environmental Program, which was terminated in the late 1970s,
With the emergence of special interests in diversity maintenance, Congress could direct both
Ch. l—Summary and Options for Congress
agencies to investigate re-establishing a similar initiative focused on biological diversity
projects.
Section 119 of FAA states:
whenever feasible, the objectives of this section shall be accomplished through projects
managed by appropriate private and voluntary
organizations, or international, regional, or national nongovernmental organizations which
are active in the region or country where the
project is located.
A number of nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs) are already working with AID in developing capacity to maintain diversity in developing countries. These include important
initiatives in the areas of conservation data
centers, of supporting development of national
conservation strategies, and of implementing
field projects, AID is also using a private NGO
to maintain a listing of environmental management experts. Such partnership could continue
to be encouraged by Congress through oversight hearings, for instance. Encouraging joint
public-private initiatives through matching grants
should also be stressed.
FINDING 10: A major constraint to developing
and implementing diversity-conserving projects in developing countries is the shortage
of funds. Present funding levels are insufficient to address the scope of the problem adequately.
Recently passed legislation earmarked $2.5
million of AID’s 1987 funds for biological diversity projects. Given that this amount is intended
to be used to address diversity loss over three
continents and is guaranteed for only 1 year,
its adequacy can be questioned. Faced with
prospects of further cuts in an already reduced
foreign assistance budget and a shift in the composition of this budget to proportionally less
development and food aid in favor of military
aid and economic support funds, it is difficult
to see where further funding for diversity maintenance could be derived.
Option 10.1: Establish a new account within the
AID budget to support biological diversity initiatives identified in the Foreign Assistance
Act.
●
31
Sections 117, 118, and 119 of FAA all define
congressional interest in conservation as an integral aspect of development. With the exception of the 1987 earmarking of funds for biological diversity, no formal funding source has
been attached to these sections. The result is
that support for conservation initiatives generally has been weak, Support has been further
eroded recently because those functional accounts used for conservation projects—Agriculture, Rural Development, and Nutrition; and
Energy, Private Voluntary Organization, and
Selected Development Activities—have received disproportionate funding cuts,
Congress could define its support for the importance of conservation to development by
establishing a separate fund, perhaps called an
Environment and Natural Resources Account,
that could be used by AID to support diversity
maintenance activities. Concerns exist that
functional accounts generally tend to reduce
AID’s flexibility, and consideration has even
been given to eliminating them entirely. If established, however, an Environment and Natural
Resources account could be used to define congressional concerns in this area. Specific earmarking for biological diversity could be considered within this new functional account.
Option 10.2: Amend the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 specifying that funds from the Food for Peace Program (Public Law 480) could be used for
projects that directly promote the conservation of biological diversity.
An existing source of funds for biological
diversity projects is Public Law 480 Food for
Peace program. Titles I and III make commodities available at confessional rates with longterm, low-interest financing for debts incurred.
Recipient countries resell the U.S. commodities and are required by contract to apply part
of the currency to self-help projects agreed on
between the country and the AID mission. The
country can eventually cancel some of its debt
by applying equivalent funds to long-term development projects. Title II provides U.S. commodities to developing countries in cases of
emergency or for nutrition and development
32 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
programs. This Food for Work program has
conducted reforestation and resource management projects in which laborers are paid with
food and with wages generated from the resale
of U.S. commodities. Hence, Public Law 480
funds are already being used to finance projects
that promote diversity maintenance. More
could be done if Congress amends Public Law
conservation groups have proposed certain
ways to provide money for biological diversity
projects. One such mechanism is the use of economic support funds for additional development
assistance programs. Though primarily used
for other purposes, economic support funds are
the most flexible of AID’s funds, with the fewest
restrictions on their use. Therefore, Congress
480 specifying that funds could be used for
diversity conservation projects.
could direct the General Accounting Office to
examine such funding mechanisms and assess
their feasibility as funding sources for maintenance of biological diversity.
Other existing funding mechanisms could be
redirected to include funding of diversity
projects. In response to funding cuts at AID,
Part I
Introduction and Background
Chapter 2
Importance of
Biological Diversity
CONTENTS
Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Benefits to Ecological Processes
Ecosystem Diversity, .. ...,.,
Species Diversity . . . . . . . . . . .
Genetic Diversity . . . . . . . . . . .
Benefits to Research . . . . . . . . . .
Ecosystem Diversity. . . . . . . . .
Species Diversity . . . . . . . . . . .
Gknetic Diversi~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Benefits to Cultural Heritage ****** ,***.*** ******* ...,*,*, ,.,,..., . .
Ecosystem Diversity. . .**.*** ******* 9******* ***.**** ****,** *.,..
Species Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***,9* **,**.* .****** ..*..*
Genetic Diversity . . .*.*,, .*.**..* ..*,.*.. . . * * * * * . . * , * . . * O * * , * * . .
Benefits to Recreation and Tourism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ecosystem Diversity. . . . . . . , * * . . * . * * * * . . . . , , , * * . . * * . * * , , , , . . . . . . ,
Species Diversity **,*.. ......4. * . * * . * * , . , , . . . . . . . . * . * * . * * * * * * . , .
Genetic Diversity . . . . . **,*** *,.**.. ******* ..****** *,**.*. .**,
Benefits to Agriculture and Harvested Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ecosystem Diversity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Species Diversity ****** ..,.**** ****.** ***.*..* .****** *..*.** . .
Genetic Diversity . . . . . . . . * * * * * * .*.*.** .,..*.** ****.** ..**,*., .*
Values and Evaluation of Biological Diversity .**,**. ***,.*. *****.* , *
Economic Value . . . . . . .....;... . . . . . . .
Intrinsic Value . . ;. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * * * * * *
Constituencies of Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Public Awareness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Balancing Interests and Perspectives . . . .
Chapter preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
●
✌ ☛ ✎ ✎ ✎ ☛
●
✌
,
*
✎
.
*
*
,
.
*
.
*
*
.
*
*
*
*
☛
*
●
*
*
☛ ☛ ✎ ☛ ☛ ✎ ✎
✎
●
*
●
✎
●
* * * * . . *
.
.
*
.
✎
.
*
,
*
*
*
,
*
✎
.
.
*
*
✎
*
✎
✎
✎
* . * , * * .
*
*
●
O
*
●
*
✎
●
*
*
* . * * . * .
*,**,.*
, * * * . * *
●
,
*
✎
4 . . . . . .
.
,
.
*
.
✎ ☛ ✎ ✎ ☛ ✎ ✎ ☛
*
.
.
.
* * * , * * . *
.
●
.
.
,
*
.
6 * * , * * ,
.
.
.
.
*
.
.
.
●
.
*
.
.
.
*
*
*
.
*
*
*
*
*
.
●
*
*
.
.
.
*
*
●
*
*
,
,
*
, * ,
. . * * * * * *
.
*
* . , * * * *
.
.
* . . . . * .
●
*
, * . , . . ,
●
●
.
✎ ☛ ☛ ✌ ✎ ✎ ✎
*
. , . * . , * .
* * . * * . *
●
*
,
. * * * * * * * *
.
●
. * , .
. , * * . * , .
* * * * * * . *
●
●
*
●
*
.
, , , . , . .
,,..,.,
*
*
●
.
✌
*
●
.
.
*
.,,*,**
. . * * * ,
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
☛
☛
☛
☛
☛
*
●
*
●
*
.
.
.
*
*
*
.
.
*
*
*
.
.
*
*
*
.
*
.
.
*
*
●
.
*
.
*
*
.
.
.
*
*
*
*
*
.
●
●
* * * * ’ * .
.
.
.
.
●
****O*.
●
.
●
●
☛
.
.
.
.
.
●
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
●
*
*
*
* * * * * . *
*
.
*
*
.
.
, , , . , , .
*
*
,
*
.
.
* . * * .
*
.
. , . . . , 0 0
*
*
*
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
●
,
. . 0 . 0
.
*
.
.
.
*
.
.
*
*
.
*
*
37
37
39
39
41
43
43
43
44
45
46
46
46
47
48
48
49
49
49
49
50
51
53
53
54
54
54
55
55
Table
Tabie No.
2-1. Examples of Benefits From Ecosystem, Species,
and Genetic Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . 0 . . . . * . * * ,
●
Page
●
*.*,.*,
●
* , , . 38
figure
Page
Figure No.
2-1. Krill:The Linchpin to the Antarctic Foodweb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Boxes
Page
BOXNO.
20A. Components of Biological Diversity ****** .****** ****.** .***.*. 38
39
z-B. Scales of Ecosystem Diversity , . . . . . . . ● “* * # , , . . . , , , , , ,
●
●●
●●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
● ●
Chapter 2
Importance of Biological Diversity
Human welfare is inextricably linked to, and
dependent on, biological diversity. Diversity is
necessary for several reasons: 1] to sustain and
improve agriculture, 2) to provide opportunities
for medical discoveries and industrial innovations, and 3) to preserve choices for addressing unpredictable problems and opportunities
of future generations. Actual and potential eco-
nomic uses range from subsistence foraging to
genetic engineering. The essential services of
ecosystems, such as moderating climate; concentrating, fixing, and recycling nutrients; producing and preserving soils; and controlling
pests and diseases are also dependent on biological diversity. Finally, diversity has esthetic
and ethical vaIues.
Biological diversity refers to the variety and
variability among 1iving organisms and the ecological complexes in which they occur. Diversity can be defined as the number of different
kinds of items and their relative frequency in
a set (97). Items are organized at many levels,
ranging from complete ecosystems to the chemical structures that are the molecular basis of
heredity, Thus, the term encompasses the numbers and relative abundance of different ecosystems, species, and genes. (Box 2-A describes
major components of biological diversity.)
The extreme effect of species diversity loss is
extinction—when a species no longer exists
anywhere.
Species diversity, for example, decreases
when the number of species in an area is reduced or when the same number exists but a
few become more abundant while others become scarce. When a species no longer exists
in an area, it is said to be locally eliminated.
Biological diversity is the basis of adaptation
and evolution and is basic to all ecological processes. It contributes to research and education,
cultural heritage, recreation and tourism, the
development of new and existing plant and animal domesticates, and the supply of harvested
resources (table 2-1). The intrinsic importance
of biological diversity lies in the uniqueness of
all forms of life: each individual is different,
as is each population, each species, and each
association of species. Major functional and
utilitarian benefits of ecosystem, species, and
genetic diversity are described in the next five
sections; evaluation of diversity and the constituencies of diversity are discussed in the final sections.
37
38 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
Table 2.1 .—Examples of Benefits From Ecosystem, Species, and Genetic Diversity
Ecological
Drocesses
Research
Cultural
heritaae
Recreation and tourism
Agriculture and
harvested resources
Rangeiands for livestock production (e.g., 34 in the U.S.);
habitats for wild pollinators
and pest enemies (e.g., saving $40 to $80 per acre for
grape growers)
Ecosystem diversity
Natural research areas;
sites for baseline monitoring (e.g., Serengeti National
Park, Zambesi Teak Forest)
Sacred mountains and
groves; historic landmarks
and landscapes (e. g.,
Mount Fuji; Voyageurs Park,
Minnesota)
700 to 800 million visitors
per year to US. State and
national parks; 250,000 to
500,000 visitors per year to
mangrove forests in Venezuela
Role of plants and animals Models for research on huin forest regeneration, man diseases and drug
grassland production, and synthesis (e.g., bristlecone
marine nutrient cycling; pine, desert pupfish, memobile links; natural fuel dicinal leeches)
stations
National symbols (bald eagles); totems; objects of
civic pride (e.g., port orford
cedar, bowhead whale, Fi-
95 million people feed, ob- Commercial logging, fishing,
serve, andlor photograph and other harvesting induswildlife each year; 54 mil- tries ($27 billion/year in U.S.);
new crops (e.g., kiwi fruit, red
lion fish; 19 million hunt
deer, catfish, and Ioblolly
pine)
Maintenance of productivity; buffering environmental changes; watershed
and coastal protection
Species diversity
cus religiosa)
Genetic diversity
Raw material of evolution
required for survival and
adaptation of species and
populations
Fruit flies in genetics, corn
in inheritance, and Nicotiana in virus studies
SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 19S6.
Breeds and cultivars of
ceremonial, historic, esthetic, or culinary value
(e.g., Texas longhorn cattle,
rice festivals (Nepal))
100,000 visitors per year to Required to avoid negative
Rare Breeds Survival Trust selection and enhancement
programs; pest and disease
in the United Kingdom
resistance alleles
Ch. 2—Importance of Biological Diversity
●
39
BENEFITS TO ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES
Ecological processes include—
●
●
●
●
●
●
regulation: monitoring the chemistry and
climate of the planet so it remains habitable;
production: conversion of solar energy and
nutrients into plant matter;
consumption: conversion of plant matter
into animal matter;
decomposition: breakdown of organic
wastes and recycling of nutrients;
protection processes: protection of soil by
grasslands and forests and protection of
coastlines by coral reefs and mangroves,
for example; and
continuation of life: processes of feeding,
breeding, and migrating.
Knowledge of the relationship between diversity and ecological processes is fragmentary,
but it is clear that diversity is crucial to the functioning of all major life processes, for diversity
helps maintain productivity and buffers ecosystems against environmental change. Diversity
within ecosystems is essential for protective,
productive, and economic benefits. Species
diversity is necessary for a stable food web. And
diversity of genetic material allows species to
adapt to changing environmental conditions.
Ecosystem Diversity
Ecosystems are systems of plants, animals,
and micro-organisms, together with the nonliving components of their environment (45).
It can be recognized on many scales, from
biome—the largest ecological unit—to microhabitat (box 2-B). Ecosystem diversity refers to
the variety that occurs within a larger landscape. Loss of ecosystem diversity can result
in both the loss of species and genetic resources
and in the impairment of ecological processes.
In eastern and southern Africa, for instance,
the mosaic of ephemeral ponds, flood plains,
and riparian woodlands enable antelope, elephant, and zebra to survive long cycles of wet
and dry years (16,23). On the American continent, many animal species cope with oscillations in weather and climate by migrating between biomes—spending the rainy season in
Box 2-B.—Scales of Ecosytem Diversity
Several ways exist to classify the many
scales of ecosystem diversity. An example
using the Pacific Northwest to illustrate four
levels of ecosystems is shown below. Animal
species characteristic of each level are noted.
1. Biome: temperate coniferous forest
–Rufous hummingbird
-Mountain beaver
Z. Zone: western hemlock
-Coho salmon
–Oregon slender salamander
3. Habitat: old growth forest
–Vaux’s swift
–Spotted owl
~. Microhabitat: fallen tree
–Clouded salamander
—California red-backed vole
The fallen tree component of old growth and
mature forests illustrates the contribution of
ecosystem diversity to ecological processes.
Fallen trees provide a rooting medium for
western hemlock and other plants that is moist
enough for growth to continue during the summer drought, a reserve of nitrogen and other
nutrients, and a source of food and shelter for
animals and micro-organisms that play key
roles in redistributing and returning the ntitrients to the regenerating forest. For example, the rotten wood provides habitat for truffles, and the truffles are eaten by the California
red-backed vole, which spreads the truffle
spores, so helping the growth of Douglas fir
trees, which require mycorrhizal fungi (such
as truffles) for uptake of nutrients (56).
the tropical dry forest and the dry season in
the rain forest, that is, summer in temperate
forest and winter in tropical forest. Others use
different habitats within the same biome; for
example, leaf-eating primates and flower-pollinating bats move from dry sites in the rainy
season to evergreen riparian trees in the dry
season (32,48).
Several types of ecosystems are closely associated with protective and productive processes
of direct economic benefit. Cloud forests, for
40 . Technologies TO Maintain Biological Diversity
example, increase precipitation, often substantially (38). Watershed forests generally reduce
soil erosion and thereby help protect downstream reservoirs, irrigation systems, harbors,
and waterways from siltation (45). Coral reefs
are productive oases in otherwise unproductive
tropical waters. Algae living inside coral polyps
enable the corals to build the reefs (8,49). The
reefs, in turn, support local fisheries and protect coastlines.
Wetlands are another example of an ecosystem with protective processes linked to economic output. Millions of waterfowl and other
birds of great economic value depend on the
diverse North American wetlands—coastal tundra wetlands, inland freshwater marshes, prairie potholes, coastal saltwater marshes, and
mangrove swamps—for breeding, feeding, migrating, and overwintering.
These wetlands also support most commercial and recreational fisheries in the United
States. About two-thirds of the major U.S.
commercial fish, crustacean, and mollusk species depend on estuaries and salt marshes for
spawning and nursery habitat (88,90). Other
wetland services include water purification (by
removing nutrients, processing organic wastes,
and reducing sediment loads), riverbank and
shoreline protection, and flood assimilation,
Wetlands temporarily store flood waters, reducing flow rates and protecting people and property downstream from flood and storm damage.
For example, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers chose protection of 8,500 acres of wetlands over construction of a reservoir or extensive walls and dikes as the least-cost solution
to flooding problems in the Charles River basin in Massachusetts, It was estimated that loss
Ch. 2—Importance of Biological Diversity
●
41
of the Charles River wetlands would have resulted in an average of $17 million per year in
flood damage (80,88,90), (Data on wetlands ecosystem losses are given in chapter 3.)
gernail clams, may fly larvae, and other riverbottom macro-invertebrates. These macro-invertebrates are still scarce, for river-bottom sediment is slow to recover from pollution, much
slower than water quality, for example (44).
Species Diversity
Certain species have a greater effect on productive processes than is indicated by their position in a food web (figure 2-1). Earthworms,
for instance, improve the mixing of soil, increase the amount of mineralized nitrogen
available for plant growth, aerate the soil, and
improve its water-holding capacity (98). Ants
also contribute to soil formation in temperate
regions and the tropics. They contribute to the
aeration, drainage, humidification, and enrichment of both forest and grassland soils (99).
Some species play such an important role in
particular ecosystems that the ecosystems are
named after them. Zambezi Teak Forest and
Longleaf-Slash Pine Forest are examples. But
the ecological processes that maintain dominant species often depend on other species. For
example, elephants and buffaloes make a crucial contribution to regeneration of Zambezi
teak by burying seeds, providing manure, and
destroying competing thicket species (72),
Depletion of species can have a devastating
impact higher up the food chain. For example,
catches of common carp in the Illinois River
are one-tenth of what they were in the early
1950s. This decrease appears to be the result
of pollution-caused die-off in the 1950s of fin-
In East Africa, species diversity increases the
productivity of grasslands. For example, grazing by wildebeest promotes the lush regrowth
eaten by gazelles (59,60). Similar interactions
have been observed in North American grasslands between prairie dogs and bison. Although
the standing crop of grass in prairie dog towns
A Se
/
Cave National Park, South Dakota, contains a variety of wildlife
elk, prairie dogs, prong horn. and
dogs and bison increase the productivity of grasslands,
deer Interactions between species such as
/o
42 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
Figure
The Linchpin to the Antarctic Foodweb
Antarctic waters are among the most product ive in t he world. The main link in this food web is the small
11, shrimp-like
in turn, support seabirds, fish, and squid, which are the mainstay of seals and whales.
that feed on plankton.
ures
Ch. Z—Importance of Biological Diversity
●
43
is half that of grass outside, protein levels and
digestibility are significantly higher. In Wind
Cave National Park, prairie dog towns occupy
less than 5 percent of the area, but bison spend
65 percent of their time per unit area in the
towns, mostly feeding (28).
and within species. Some groups of species appear to be more variable than others: reptile,
bird, and mammal species have less than half
the genetic variation found in invertebrate species and less than a quarter of that found in
many insects and marine invertebrates (34),
Some species have an unusually prominent
position in food webs, being major predators
of species on lower levels of the food chain and
major prey of species on higher levels. Arctic
cod, for example, feed on herbivorous and carnivorous zooplankton (amphipods, copepods,
and decapods). Cod, in turn, is an important
food of many bird and marine mammal species including gulls, narwhals, belugas, and
harp seals (25),
The greater the amount of genetic variation
in a population, the faster its potential rate of
evolution (7). Certain genes are directly important for survival (e. g., genes conferring disease
resistance), In addition, genetic diversity enables species to adapt to a wide range of physical, climatic, and soil conditions and to changes
in those conditions. Genetic diversity is positively correlated with fitness, vigor, and reproductive success (7,85).
Genetic Diversity
Intraspecific genetic diversity allows species
to adapt to changing conditions, thus sustaining ecosystem and species diversity; it also
helps produce plants and animals that will support more productive agriculture and forestry,
Genetic diversity is distributed unevenly among
Among marine animals, and probably among
terrestrial animals as well, high genetic variability is associated with high species diversity,
which in turn is associated with a number of
spatially different microhabitats (e. g., tropical
and deep sea environments). It seems likely that
the high genetic variability y provides the flexibility to make finely tuned adjustments to microhabitats.
BENEFITS TO RESEARCH
Research may hold answers to many of the
questions facing this complex world. The results of research on the patterns and processes
of temperate forests have provided methods for
sustainable management of those ecosystems,
Knowledge of tropical rain forests will result
in similar strategies. Without diversity of species, researchers would not have the needed
plant material to develop many vaccines, intravenous fluid, or other medicines, The potential for further advancement has not been fully
realized, yet a loss of species diversity will adversely affect future research. Protection of
genetic diversity is equally essential, because
materials from plants and animals have provided valuable knowledge on viruses, immunology, and disease resistance.
Ecosystem Diversity
Many contributions of ecosystem diversity
to global ecological processes, e.g., the role of
wetlands in the Earth’s oxygen balance, have
yet to be demonstrated quantitatively, But the
research required to develop and test these hypotheses depends on the full range of diversity.
By studying natural ecosystems, scientists are
better able to understand how the Earth works.
Knowledge of the role of ecosystem diversity
in ecological processes is substantial and growing, largely because of the availability of natural research areas such as the Olympic National
Park and the H.J, Andrews Experimental Ecological Reserve in Willamette National Forest
(42,81). Relatively undisturbed grasslands in the
44 Technologies T O Maintain Biological Diversity
●
Serengeti National Park (Tanzania) and Wind
Cave National Park (South Dakota) provide research significant for range management. Research includes, for example, studies of the extent to which grazing intensity increases
primary production and the protein content and
digestibility of grasses (28). Research on species and natural gene pools also requires ecosystem maintenance.
Representative examples of major ecosystems
are used as reference sites for baseline monitoring on productivity, regeneration, and adaptation to environmental change. In addition,
evaluation of development projects to ensure
they are both economical and sustainable calls
for assessment of, among other things, their
environmental effects measured against unaltered sites with similar vegetation, soils, and
climate.
The Zambezi Teak Forest ecosystem, for example, which yields Zambia’s most valuable
timber, is declining rapidly, due to excessive
logging, fire, and shifting cultivation. If present
trends continue, this forest would effectively
disappear in 50 years. Attempts at artificial
regeneration have met with little success. To
improve understanding of natural regeneration,
an undisturbed tract of the forest in Kafue National Park is being studied. Continued monitoring of the Kafue tract will provide data
needed for assessing costs and benefits of any
silviculture system for the Zambezi Teak Forest (72,74).
Ecosystems are also living classrooms. The
University of California’s Natural Land and
Water Reserves System includes 26 reserves
representing 106 of the 178 habitat types identified for the State. The reserves are used for
instruction and research in botany, geology,
ecology, archeology, ethology, paleontology,
wildlife management, genetics, zoology, population biology, and entomology (52). Enabling
children and adults to experience different ecosystems is an effective way to teach ecological
processes, genetic variation, community composition and dynamics, and human relations
with the natural world.
Species Diversity
Species diversity is the basis for many fields
of scientific research and education. The array of invertebrates used in research illustrates
the importance of diversity to the advancement
of science. The 100 or so species of Hawaiian
picture-winged fruit flies are the organisms of
choice for basic research on genetics, evolutionary biology, and medicine. Tree snails of
Hawaii and the Society Islands provide ideal
material for research on evolution and genetic
variation and differentiation (57).
Bristlecone pines, the oldest known living
organisms and found only in the U.S. Southwest, are used to calibrate radiocarbon dates
and hence, are important for archeology, prehistory, and climatology (62). Contributions of
plant and animal species to biomedical research
and drug synthesis abound (63,71). Examples
include:
Desert pupfishes, found only in the Southwest, tolerate salinity twice that of saltwater and are valuable models for research
on human kidney disease (63).
Sea urchin eggs are used extensively in experimental embryology, in studies of cell
structure and fertilization, and in tests on
the teratological effects of drugs (98).
Medicinal leeches are important in neurophysiology and research on blood clotting (98).
An extract of horseshoe crabs provides the
quickest and most sensitive test of vaccines
and intravenous fluids for contamination
with bacterial endotoxins (98).
Butterfly species are used in research on
cancers, anemias, and viral diseases (82).
The study of sponges is making substantial contributions to structural chemistry,
pharmaceutical chemistry, and developmental biology and has also resulted in the
discovery of novel chemical compounds
and activities. D-arabinosyl cytosine, an important synthetic antiviral agent, owes its
development to the discovery of spongouridine, which was isolated from a Jamaican
Ch.
2—Importance of Biological Diversity 45
●
Cohen
Zoo
The armadillo is one of only two animal species known to contract leprosy.
These animals now serve as research models to find a cure.
sponge. Three derivatives of this compound have been patented as antiviral and
anticancer drugs (10).
Genetic Diversity
Genetic variability is one of the characteristics of fruit flies, tree snails, and butterflies that
makes them so useful for research. The unusual
range of diversity among the races, varieties,
and lines of corn contributes to its enormous
value for basic biological research. One example is the discovery and analysis of regulatory
systems that control gene expression, which
added a new dimension to the study of inheritance (21).
The genus Nicotiana has also been used
widely in genetic and botanical research largely
because of the great variation among its species (84). The varied reactions to specific viruses
characteristic of many Nicotiana species provide a potential tool for separating and identifying viruses, Nicotiana species have been
involved in numerous discoveries of virus research (e. g., virus transmissibility, purification,
and mutability) (35),
Special genetic stocks are essential research
tools. For example, inbred lines of chickens developed at the University of California at Davis
are used worldwide for research on immunology and disease resistance of chickens. Mutant
stocks of chickens also serve as genetic models
for scoliosis (lateral curvature of the spine) and
muscular dystrophy in humans (58).
46 Technologies T O Maintain Biological Diversity
●
BENEFITS TO CULTURAL HERITA6E
Throughout history, societies have put great
value on physical features of their environment.
In developed and developing countries, a diversity of ecosystems is a source of esthetic, historic, religious, and ritualistic values. Species
diversity assures people of national and state
symbols, and many such symbols are protected.
Genetic diversity continues in part because of
the cultural value of plants and animals. Gardeners around the world share seed material
ensuring genetic survival.
Ecosystem Diversity
Natural ecosystems have great cultural (including religious, esthetic, and historic) importance for many people. Mountains are the focus
of religious celebrations and rituals throughout the world: Mount Kenya, Mount Everest,
Mount Fuji, Mount Taishan in China, and Black
Mesa in Arizona. Forests also have great spiritual value: probably the only surviving examples of primary forest in southwestern India
are sacred groves—ancient natural sanctuaries
where all living creatures are protected by the
deity to which the grove is dedicated. Removing even a twig from the grove is taboo (36).
opening of the Midwest and West at Voyageurs
Park in Minnesota; and combinations of wilderness preservation and human occupation including current subsistence-use at Kobuk Valley in Alaska (66,94).
Species Diversity
Whereas the Continenta] Congress in 1782
adopted the bald eagle as a national symbol; and
Whereas the bald eagle thus became the symbolic representation of a new nation under a
new government in a new world; and
Whereas by that act of Congress and by tradition and custom during the life of this Nation, the bald eagle is no longer a mere bird of
biological interest but a symbol of the American ideals of freedom . . .
–Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940
.
People who lead subsistence-based lives identify closely with the ecosystems on which they
depend. Two examples are the Guarao people
in the mangrove swamps and savannas of Venezuela’s Orinoco Delta (39) and the Inuit people
in the tundra of the North American Arctic
(9,24). The economic, social, and spiritual elements of the relationship between such peoples
and the ecosystems that support them are inseparable.
Ecosystems define and symbolize relationships between human beings and the natural
world and express cultural and national identity, In the United States, the landscapes protected in wilderness areas, national parks, monuments, and preserves are full of historical
meaning and show the close ties between America the nation and America the land. Examples
of these are pre-Columbian Indian habitations
at Mesa Verde in Colorado; symbols of the
National
Federation
Cultural value of species is exemplified by the bald
eagle, adopted by the Continental Congress as a
symbol of the United States.
Ch. 2—lmporfance of
When Congress adopted the bald eagle as a
national symbol, it was responding to an ancient human need to identify with other species, All over the world and throughout history,
people have adopted animals and plants as emblems, icons, symbols, and totems and invested
them with ideals and values, adopted them as
representations of particular characteristics of
their culture and society, sought the power and
authority they stand for, or venerated them as
embodiments of fruitfulness and life itself.
The endangered bowhead whale plays a pivotal cultural role in several Yupik and Inupiat
Eskimo villages in northern Alaska, Bowhead
whale hunting is the first and most important
activity in the subsistence cycle. It is a major
social unifier, providing community identity
and continuity with the past, The division, distribution, and sharing of bowhead whale meat
and skin involve the entire community, strengthening kinship and communal bonds. Important
ceremonies, celebrations, and feasts accompany the harvest of a bowhead whale and the
distribution and sharing of its meat (4,5).
Port Or ford Cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniance), prized for its cultural and economic
values, has become the focus of a recent controversy. It grows only in a small area of southern Oregon and northern California, where it
produces some of the area’s highest priced timber. Top quality may cost as much as $3,000
per 1,000 board-feet. This price reflects demand
from Japan, where it is used in homes and temples as a substitute for the no longer available
Japanese Hinoki cypress. It also has great cultural importance for Native Americans of the
Hupa, Yurok, and Karok tribes in northwestern
California, who regard it as sacred and use the
wood in homes and religious ceremonies, Management of remaining stands of the cedar has
become controversial, because mature trees are
in short supply and threatened by a tree-killing
root-rot disease, spread partly by logging operations (22).
Native Americans seek to reserve all the Port
Orford Cedar growing on formal tribal land–
now administered by the U.S. Forest Service—
for ceremonial purposes. Other citizens’ groups
Biological Diversity 47
●
seek a management plan that would control logging operations and restrict loggers’ access to
some areas to reduce the spread of the fungus.
Scientists at the Forest Service and Oregon
State University are exploring the genetic diversity of the species in an effort to develop strains
resistant to the fungus (22),
In South and Southeast Asia, trees, Asian
elephants, monkeys, cobras, and birds figure
prominently in tribal religions and have been
taken into the pantheons of Hinduism and Buddhism. Certain tree species, such as F i c u s
religiosa, are sacrosanct and may not be cut
down (2,20); political authorities often invoke
the sanction of animals to win popular support
(61). Interspecific loyalties persist; the hornbill,
central figure of the Gawai Kenya-lang or Hornbill Festival of the Iban people in Sarawak,
Malaysia, is also the official emblem of the state
(50).
In urban North America, species also express
community identity. Inwood, Manitoba, proclaims itself the garter snake capital of the
world (after the mass matings of red-sided garter snakes that occur nearby) (67], and Pacific
Grove, California, dubs itself Butterfly Town,
USA (after the spectacular colonies of Monarch
butterflies that overwinter there) (98). These
actions are partly commercial acumen—the
phenomena are tourist attractions—but they
also reflect civic pride and perhaps something
deeper as well,
Many crop varieties and livestock breeds persist because they are culturally valuable to
different societies, This group includes plants
and animals with religious and ceremonial significance—such as the festival rices of Nepal
and Mithan cattle in northern Burma and northeastern India (40)—as well as varieties valued
for their contribution to the traditional diet.
Farmers in the Peruvian Andes commonly
plant their potato fields with many varieties
(often 30 or more), producing a mixture of
colors, shapes, textures, and flavors to enhance
the diet (14), In northwestern Spain, a mosaic
48 . Technologies TO Maintain Biological Diversity
.
of local varieties of beans and other legumes
is grown, each variety intended for a particular dish in the traditional cuisine (3).
A growing number of Americans value traditional cuhivars and breeds for their history and
for their esthetic and culinary qualities. Native
Americans, helped by grassroots organizations,
continue to grow traditional varieties of corn,
chiles, beans, and squash (91). Hispanic-American farmers in the Southwest prefer native corn
for its texture, flavor, and color, even though
its yield is only one-third to one-fourth of hybrid corn (64), The cultural value of rare livestock breeds is exemplified by Texas Longhorn
cattle (which have a prominent place in American history) and Navaho sheep (whose fleece
is important to Navaho weaving).
credit. G.
Gardeners have organized national and regional networks to conserve some plant varieties because they have better taste, have links
with national, local, and ethnic history; are suitable for the home garden; and because of the
abundance of colors and forms found among
old and local varieties of potatoes, corn, beans,
and other crops (33,43,47,64,91).
Hopi Indian garden of mixed crops illustrates ancient
horticultural traditions that persist on this continent.
BENEFITS TO RECREATION AND TOURISM
Millions of people worldwide derive benefits
from recreation and tourism provided by biological diversity. Without diverse ecosystems,
countries would lose tremendous amounts of
foreign exchange. Without wilderness areas,
national parks, or national forests, city dwellers
would have no place to “escape” the daily pressures. Species diversity is essential to the milIions of wildlife photographers, bird lovers, and
plant and animal watchers. And without genetic diversity, horticulturists, gardeners, animal breeders, and anglers would find little enjoyment in their avocations.
Ecosystem Diversity
State and National parks in the United States
attract 700 to 800 million visitors per year
(73,74), and National Forests receive some 200
million visitors per year (93). One reason for
these visits—indeed, some surveys suggest the
main reason—is to enjoy the variety of landscapes the parks and forests protect (83), Sightseeing accounts for more recreation-visitor
days (52 million) in National Forests than any
other recreation activity except camping (60
million) (93).
———
Ch. Z—Importance of Biological Diversity “ 49
Ecosystem diversity is a significant recreational asset in developing countries as well. In
Venezuela, the mangrove forests of Morrocoy
National Park attract 250,000 to 500,000 visitors per year (39); in Nepal, mountain landscapes, rhododendron forests, and fauna bring
in foreign exchange (55),
Species Diversity
About 95 million Americans a year participate in nonconsumptive recreational uses of
wildlife (observing, feeding, or photographing
wild plants and animals); each year 54 million
Americans fish and 19 million Americans hunt
for sport. In the process they spend $32.4 billion per year (95).
Surveys of American recreational uses of
wildlife reveal that a number of different species interest people. Recreational hunters in
North America pursue some 90 species (73,74).
Millions of Americans take time to observe not
only birds and mammals, but also amphibians,
reptiles, butterflies, spiders, beetles, and other
arthropods (95),
Little data exist on wildlife recreational use
by people in developing countries, but for several nations wildlife-based tourism is big business. The spectacular wild animals of east and
southern Africa are the resource base of a tourist industry that brings millions of dollars in
foreign exchange. In 1985, Kenya netted about
$300 million from almost 500,000 visitors, making wildlife tourism the country’s biggest earner
of foreign exchange (l).
Genetic Diversity
Millions of home gardeners and members of
horticultural and animal breed associations derive recreational benefit from genetic diversity.
So, too, do millions of anglers who take advantage of stocking and enhancement programs.
Tourism associated with genetic diversity involves fewer people, although the Rare Breeds
Survival Trust in the United Kingdom receives
100,000 visitors a year. In North America, at
least 10 million people visit the some 200 living historical farms—open-air museums that recreate and interpret agricultural and other
activities of a particular point in history (91).
BENEFITS TO AGRICULTURE AND HARVESTED RESOURCES
In agriculture, a diversity of ecosystems, species, and genetic material provides increased
amounts and quality of yields. In a world where
population is rapidly increasing, assuring a continued increase in harvested resources is essential. Diversity in an agroecosystem provides
habitat for predators of crop pests and breeding sites for pollinators. Diversity of species can
be a buffer against economic failure and can
also play an important role in pest management.
Further, the use of genetic materials by breeders has attributed to at least 50 percent of the
increase in agriculture yields and quality.
Ecosystem Diversity
Both diversity and isolation affect the ability
of pests to invade a crop. They also affect the
supply of pests’ enemies, Uncultivated habitats
next to croplands contain wildflowers, which
contain important nutrients for the adult stages
of predatory and parasitic insects (37). Wildflowers also support essential alternate hosts
for parasites, especially in seasons when pests
they prey on are not present, In California, for
instance, wild brambles (Rubus) provide an offseason reservoir of prey for wasps, which control a major grape pest, This arrangement saves
grape growers $40 to $60 per acre in reduced
pesticide costs (6,54).
A variety of wild habitats also provides food,
cover, and breeding sites for pollinators. Wild
pollinators (chiefly insects) make major contributions to the production of at least 34 crops
grown or imported by the United States, with
a combined annual average value of more than
$1 billion. They are the main pollinating agents
in the production of cranberry and cacao, the
propagation of red clover, and the production
50
T echnologies
to Maintain Biological Diversity
and propagation of cashew and squash. They
are also significant pollinators for such crops
as coconut, apple, sunflower, and carrot. The
abundance of wild pollinators is largely determined by the availability of ecosystem diversity (woods, scrub, bare ground, moist areas,
patches of flowers) within flight range of the
crops to be pollinated (73,74).
permanent pastures and rangelands occupy
one-fourth of the Earth’s land surface (31). Because they support most of the world’s 3 billion head of domesticated grazing animals (45),
rangelands can be considered harvested ecosystems, where the nutrients and solar energy
of marginal lands are converted into meat, milk,
wood, and other goods,
In the United States, 34 rangelands are involved and include plains, prairie, mountain
grassland, and Texas savanna (93). Pastoral
nomadism and migrations by wild herbivores
are traditional ways of using these resources.
Modern ways include hauling sheep between
summer and winter ranges, which may be 300
to 400 kilometers apart in the intermountain
region (12).
Species Diversity
Diversity of harvestable species acts as a
buffer that allows people in fluctuating environments to cope with extremes. For instance,
in Botswana, five wild plant species are extensively used by pastoralists and river people, but
an additional 50 or more species are resorted
to in times of drought (17).
Harvested species provide much of the subsistence of indigenous peoples and rural communities throughout the world. Wild bearded
pig and deer contribute about 36,000 tons of
meat a year to rural diets in Sarawak, Malaysia. This amount of meat from domestic animals would cost about $138 million. (15). Per
capita consumption of harvested food by Inuit
in the North American Arctic averages annually from 229 kg (504 lb) to 346 kg (761 lb). The
per capita cost of buying substitute food (usually of lower nutritional and cultural value) was
estimated to be $2,1OO per year (1981 figures)
(4,101).
The commercial timber, fishery, and fur industries obtain most of their resources by harvesting wild species, Harvested resources are
also major contributors to the pharmaceutical
industry, and to many other industries as well.
The average annual value of the wild resources
produced and imported by the United States
between 1976 and 1980 was about $27,4 billion,
of which $23 billion was timber (73,74).
Many species are involved, but most of them
are economically significant only to the tradesmen involved. Even so, the number of harvested
species might run up to more than a hundred.
For example, it takes on average 70 species to
make up 90 percent of the annual value of U.S.
commercial fishery landings (74).
In agriculture, two types of diversity are useful in pest management programs: crop diversity and pest enemy diversity, Crop diversity
(multiple cropping) can promote the activity of
beneficial insects. For example, to attract
Lycosa wolf spiders, the main predators of corn
borers in Indonesia, farmers interplant the corn
with peanuts (46). In California, lygus bugs, one
of the main pests of cotton, are controlled somewhat by strip-planting alfalfa, which the bugs
prefer to cotton (11). Pest enemy diversity includes introduced as well as native enemies.
The Florida citrus industry saves $35 million
per year by using three parasitic insect species
that were imported and established at a cost
of $35,000. Some 200 foreign insect pests in the
United States are controlled by introduced parasites and predators (63).
A long-standing use of wild species diversity
is as a source of new domesticates. In the
United States, the combined farm sales and import value of domesticated wild species is well
over $1 billion per year. The domestication of
two major groups of resources—timber trees
and aquatic animals—has only begun and is at
about the same stage that agricultural domestications were some 5,000 years ago. But agricultural and horticultural domestications are
still occurring.
Among the successful new food crops developed this century are kiwifruit, highbush blueberry, and wild rice (most of the wild rice
Ch. 2—lmportnce of Biological Diversity
●
51
Two intercropping systems —fava beans and
sprouts, and wild mustard and
sprouts—demonstrate
sprouts crop: wild mustard acts as a trap c r o p
the benefits of diversity to agriculture. Both systems benefit the
of flea beetles, and fava beans fix nitrogen with possible benefits to
sprouts yields.
produced in the United States is domesticated).
New and incipient forage crops include Bahia
grass, desmodium, and several of the wheatgrasses, Red deer and aquiculture species such
as catfish, hardshell clam, and the giant freshwater prawn, are among the newly domesticated livestock. Loblolly pine, slash pine,
parana pine, and balsa are some of the new timber domesticates (73,74).
VaZeriana wallichii) for example, and it is investigating propagation of several other wild
species that are sources of drugs, perfumes, and
flavors for export, Scientists in Zambia and Botswana are working on the domestication of
mungongo tree, whose fruits are used for food
and oil and whose wood is valued for carvings
(74),
Domestication of wild species increases the
economic benefits of wild species by improving
product quality and by raising yields. It can also
make a valuable contribution to rural development in areas that are marginal for conventional crops and livestock. Nepal’s Department
of Medicinal Plants has organized the farming
of two native species IRauvolfia serpentine and
Genetic Diversity
Health and long-term productivity of wild resource species—from game animals to timber
trees to food and sport fish—depend on genetic
diversity within and among the harvested populations, If the best individuals (biggest animals,
tallest trees) are harvested before they repro-
52 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
stock. Use of genetic resources during this century has revolutionized agricultural productivity. In the United States from 1930 to 1980,
yields per unit area of rice, barley, and soybeans
doubled; wheat, cotton, and sugarcane yields
more than doubled; fresh-market tomato yields
tripled; corn, sorghum, and potato yields more
than quadrupled; and processing-tomato yields
quintupled (65,92).
credit M
At least half of these increases have been attributed to plant breeders’ use of genetic diversity. The gain due to breeding is estimated to
be 1 percent per year for corn, sorghum, wheat,
and soybeans, due mainly to improvements in
grain-to-straw ratio, standability, drought resistance, tolerance of environmentaI stress, and
Medicine from nature:
sp., known as “sangre
de grade” in the Peruvian Amazon. This tree produces
a sap used for a variety of medicinal purposes.
duce, then the productivity and adaptability of
the population will progressively decline.
In addition, certain populations are better
adapted to particular locations than others. For
example, chinook, coho, and sockeye salmon
from different rivers are genetically distinct;
these distinctions reflect differences in the
physical and chemical characteristics of the
streams in which they originated (69,70). Diversity needs to be maintained so that any restocking to compensate for overharvesting or habitat degradation can use populations that are
adapted to the specific environmental conditions.
In agriculture, genetic diversity in the form
of readily available genes reduces a crop’s vulnerability to pests and pathogens. Resistance
genes can be introduced as long as a high degree of genetic diversity is maintained in offsite collections, onsite reserves, and agroecosystems. U.S. plant breeders keep a substantial
supply of diversity in cultivars, parental lines,
synthetic populations, and other breeders’ stocks
ready for use (13,26),
The genetic variation in domesticated plants
and animals and in their wild relatives is the
raw material with which breeders increase
yields and improve the quality of crops and live-
Nat/ens—/d
Plant breeders’ use of genetic diversity has significantly
increased the productivity of crops such as wheat.
Ch. 2—Importance of Biological Diversity
pest and disease resistance (18,27,79). Similarly,
the average milk yield of cows in the United
States has more than doubled during the past
30 years; about one-fourth of this increase is
due to genetic improvement (89).
Developing countries have also achieved increased production of major crops. The Green
Revolution that has transformed heavily populated Asian countries is founded on use of particular genes. High-yielding varieties of rice,
for example, rely on a gene from a traditional
variety for the “dwarf” stature that enables the
plant to channel nutrients from fertilizers into
grain production without getting top-heavy and
falling over before harvest time. Although the
dwarfing trait is effective in many locations,
the high-yielding varieties need other genetic
characteristics from many different varieties,
The rice variety IR36, used in many countries
to sustain yield gains, was derived by crossbreeding 13 parents from 6 countries (19,87).
progress in tomato improvement in the United
States has followed the use of exotic germplasm
(traditional cultivars, wild forms of the domesticated species, and exclusively wild species).
Fruit quality (color, sugar content, solids content); adaptations for mechanized harvesting;
and resistance to 15 serious diseases have been
transferred to the tomato from its wild relatives.
One researcher noted:
Resistance to some of these diseases is mandatory for economic production of the crop in
California, and it is doubtful whether the State’s
tomato industry would exist without these and
other desired traits derived from exotics (77).
Rice and tomato illustrate the importance of
maintaining as much of the genetic variation
remaining within the domesticates and their
●
53
wild relatives as possible, because both crops
have benefited from genes occurring in a single population and nowhere else, Asian rice cultivars get their resistance to grassy stunt virus,
a disease that in one year destroyed 116,000
hectares (287,000 acres), from one collection
of Oryza nivara (53). The gene for a jointless
fruit-stalk (a trait that assists mechanized harvesting and is worth millions of dollars per year)
in tomato is found in a single population of a
wild relative (Lycopersicon cheesmanii) unique
to the Galapagos Islands (78),
A variety of genetic resources is being used
in the breeding of livestock, particularly cattle
and sheep. Crossbreeding Brahman cattle with
Hereford, Angus, Charolais, and Shorthorn
breeds has had a major impact on commercial
beef production in North America (30). A number of African cattle breeds are notable sources
of disease and pest resistance (West African
Shorthorn to trypanosomiasis, N’dama and Baole to dermatitis, Zebu to ticks) (34), The Finnish landrace of sheep was almost lost before
its high level of reproductive efficiency was discovered, It has now been incorporated into
commercial mating lines in the United Kingdom and North America (30).
Yield and quality improvements can continue
to be made and defended against pests and pathogens, provided plant and animal breeding continues to be supported and the genetic diversity
that breeders draw on is maintained, Indeed,
there is no option but to go on improving crops
and livestock if world agriculture is to respond
successfully to economic and environmental
changes and to the new strains of pests and diseases that evolve to overcome existing resistance.
VALUES AND EVALUATION OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
Biological diversity benefits everyone, is valued by many (in a variety of ways), but is owned
by no one. Thus, its evaluation is fraught with
complexity. There are two broad classes of
value: economic and intrinsic.
Economic Value
Economic evaluation potentially covers all
functional benefits described in this chapter,
ranging from tangible benefits from harvested
54 “ Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
resources and breeding materials to spiritual
and other cultural benefits. The ability to calculate these values varies, however. In the cases
where markets exist, calculations are easily determined (at least $27,4 billion per year in the
United States for commercially harvested wild
species, as noted earlier). In other cases, values
are more difficult to calculate, and “shadow
prices” may be used to approximate values for
such benefits as ecological processes and recreation, For cultural and esthetic values, economic valuation may be impossible,
If humans interacted in a system with limited
resources, then markets would allow equilibrium prices to emerge for all commodities, services, amenities and resources. These prices
would reflect the relative values (including social values) of each item. The essential premises for economic valuation are utility and scarcity (75).
But for most benefits of biological diversity,
free market principles do not apply. Maintenance of biological diversity is a “nonrival”
good (it benefits everybody), and it is a “nonexclusive” good (no person can be excluded from
the satisfaction of knowing a species exists),
as are many of its benefits (research and education, cultural heritage, nonconsumptive recreation, use of genetic resources). And it is not
clear that market-oriented logic is adequate to
deal with two cardinal features of biological
diversity: its potential for indefinite renewability (long-time horizon) and for extinction (irreversibility) (75).
Intrinsic Value
Intrinsic evaluation acknowledges that other
creatures have value independent of human
recognition and estimation of their worth. The
concept is both ancient and universal. A
spokesperson of the San people of Botswana
put it this way:
Once upon a time, humans, animals, plants,
and the wind, sun, and stars were all able to
talk together. God changed this, but we are still
a part of a wider community. we have the right
to live, as do the plants, animals, wind, sun,
and stars; but we have no right to jeopardize
their existence (16).
This preceding statement might be supported
by Americans who believe in “existence values”
—values that are defined independently of human uses (68). This belief implies a human obligation not to eradicate species or habitats, even
if doing so harms no human. A 3-year study
of American attitudes toward wildlife found
that the majority seemed willing to make substantial social and economic sacrifices to protect wildlife and its habitats (51). Advocates of
wildlife protection maintain that “it makes me
feel better to know there are bears in the area,
even though I’d just as soon never run into one”
(76). Proponents of biological diversity argue
that even if diversity is functionally redundant
or has no utilitarian worth, it should be maintained just “because it is there. ”
CONSTITUENCIES OF DIVERSITY
Biological diversity benefits a variety of interest groups, so its constituency is enormous
but fragmented by the interests of particular
groups. Each group may appear small compared with the Nation as a whole. Collectively,
however, these groups and their combined concern amount to the national interest in maintaining biological diversity.
Public Awareness
A major obstacle to promoting effective and
long-term maintenance of biological diversity
is the lack of awareness on the part of the general public of the importance of diversity (in
the broader sense). It is easy to understand why
the loss of biological diversity has difficulty cap-
Ch. 2—importance of Biological Diversity
turing public attention. First, the concept is
complex to grasp. For this reason, efforts to solicit support have appealed to emotionalism
associated with the loss of particularly appealing species or spectacular habitats (86), Although effective in many cases, this approach
has the effect of limiting the constituency and
the boundaries of the problem. A second reason
is that the more pervasive threats to diversity,
such as habitat loss or narrowing of agricultural crop genetic bases, are not dramatic events
that occur quickly. The difficulty is one of responding to a potentially critical problem that,
for the average person, seems to lack immediacy.
Finally, promoting the case for biological
diversity maintenance is also difficult because
of the proliferation of environmental problems
brought to public attention in the last decade
or two, including acid rain, ozone depletion,
the greenhouse effect, and loss of topsoil. “All
these environmental problems have the apocalyptic potential to destroy, yet in every case the
cause, imminence, and scope of that power are
subject to polarizing (and eventually paralyzing) interpretation” (29).
Notwithstanding these difficulties, the environmental movement of the 1970s elevated
environmental quality to a major public policy
concern. Although the momentum of public attention may have slowed in the 1980s, it is clear
that concern for the environment remains
firmly entrenched in the collective consciousness of the American public. A 1985 Harris poll,
for example, indicated that 63 percent of Americans place greater priority on environmental
cleanup than on economic growth (41).
55
Balancing Interests and
Perspectives
In assessing the level of public resources to
be directed toward maintaining biological
diversity, it is important to maintain a frame
of reference of how, when, and for whom biological diversity is important. Such a perspective should consider:
1. varying perceptions on the value of biological diversity and threats to it;
2. an awareness that only some diversity can
be or probably will be saved; and
3. a recognition that resources available to
address efforts are limited.
As mentioned earlier, biological diversity is
not at present a pervasive concern for many
people, or at least there is no consensus that
as much diversity must be conserved as possible. While earlier sections of this chapter identified large constituencies that value biological diversity, some elements of society remain
apathetic to the issue, and others support efforts to eliminate various components of diversity. For example, considerable resources are
directed to reducing populations or even eliminating entire species of pests, pathogens, or
predators that threaten agriculture and human
health. In terms of public policy, such efforts
imply a need to recognize that in some cases
diversity maintenance and other human interests can conflict. It should be noted, however,
that conflicts stem less from the existence of
diversity than from the altered abundance of
particular species.
CHAPTER 2 REFERENCES
1. Achiron, M., and Wilkinson, R., “Africa: The
Last Safari?” Newsweek, Aug. 18, 1986,
2. Agrawal, S, R., “Trees, Flowers and Fruits in
Indian Folk Songs, Folk Proverbs, and Folk
Tales, ” Glimpses of Indian Ethnobotany, S.K.
Jain (cd.) (New Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta, India:
Oxford and IBH Publishing Co,, 1981).
3. Alaman
Castro, M. C., Casanova Pena, C., and
Bueno Perez, M. A., “La Recognida de Germo-
plasma por el Noroeste de Espana, ” Plant Genetic Resources Newsletter 53:41-43, 1983.
4. Alaska Consultants and Stephen Braund &
Associates, Subsistence Study of Alaska Eskimo WhaZing ViZZages (Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of the Interior, 1984).
5. Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, Alaska
Eskimo Whaling (Barrow, AK: 1985).
6. AliNiazee, M. T., and Oatman, E. R., “Pest Man-
56 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
“The Conservation and Use of Rice Genetic Resources,” Advances in Agronomy 35:37-9I,
agement Programs, ” Biological Control and Insect Pest Management, D.W. Davis, et al. (eds.)
(Oakland, CA: University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences, 1979).
7. Ayala, F. J., “The Mechanisms of Evolution, ”
Scientific American 239(3):56-69, 1978.
8.
Basson, P. W., Burchard, Jr., J. E., Hardy, J. T,,
and Price, A. R. G., Biotopes of the Western Arabian Gulf.” Marine Life and Environments of
Saudi Arabia, Aramco Department of Loss Pre-
vention and Environmental Affairs (Dhahran:
1977).
9. Berger, T. R., Village Journey: The Report of
the Alaska Native Review Commission (New
York: Hill & Wang, 1985).
10. Berquist, P. R., “Sponge Chemistry—A Rev i e w , Colloques Internationaux du C N R S
291:383-392, 1978,
1982.
20. Chaudhuri,
R. H. N., and Pal, D. C., “Plants in
Folk Religion and Mythology, ” GZimpses of Indian Etlmobotany, S.K. Jain (cd.) (New Delhi,
Bombay, Calcutta, India: Oxford and IBH Publishing Co., 1981),
21. Coe, E, H., and Neuffer, M. G., “The Genetics
of Corn, ” Corn and Corn Improvement, 2d cd.,
Monograph 18, G.F. Sprague (cd.) (Madison,
WI: American Society of Agronomy, 1977).
22. Cohn, L., “The Port Orford Cedar, ” American
Forests, July 1986, pp. 16-19.
23. Cooke, H. J., “The Kalahari Today: A Case of
Conflict Over Resource Use, ” The Geographi24.
cal Journal 151(1):75-85, 1985.
Damas, D. (cd.), Arctic, Volume 5: Handbook
of North American Indians (Washington, DC:
Watson, T. F.,
“Cultural Practices in Pest Control,” Biological Control and Insect Pest Management, D.W.
Davis, et al, (eds.) (Oakland, CA: University of
California, Division of Agricultural Sciences,
1979).
12. Box, T. W., “Potential of Arid and Semi-Arid
Rangelands,” Potential of the WorZd’s Forages
for Ruminant Animal Production, 2d cd., R.D.
Child and E.K. Byington (eds.) (Morrilton, AR:
Winrock International Livestock Research and
Training Center, 1981).
13, Brown, W. L., “Genetic Diversity and Genetic
Vulnerability—An Appraisal, ” Economic Bot-
ment of Northwest Territories, Yellowknife:
Science Advisory Board, 1980).
26. Duvick, D. N., “Genetic Diversity in Major
Farm Crops on the Farm and in Reserve,” Eco-
any 37(1):4-12, 1983.
14, Brush, S. B., Carney, H. J., and Huaman, Z.,
Hilbert, D. W., “The Role of Herbivores in
Grasslands,” Grasses and Grasslands: Sys-
“Dynamics of Andean Potato Agriculture, ”
J,R. Estes, R.J. Tyrl, and
J.N. Brunken (eds,) (Norman, OK: University
of Oklahoma Press, 1982).
29, Ebisch, R., “A Layman’s Guide to Modern
Menaces, ” TWA Ambassador, 18(10):49-58,
October 1985.
30, Fitzhugh, H. A., Getz, W,, and Baker, F. H., “Status and Trends of Domesticated Animals, ”
OTA commissioned paper, 1985.
31. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of
the United Nations, 1984 FAO Production
Yearbook, FAO Statistics Series 38 (Rome:
1985).
32. Foster, R. B,, “Heterogeneity and Disturbance
in Tropical Forest Vegetation, ” Conservation
11. Bishop, G. W., Davis, D. W., and
Economic Botany 35(1):70-88, 1981,
Caldecott, J., and Nyaoi, A., “Hunting in
Sarawak,” report prepared for the Ad hoc Subcommittee on Mammals and Birds of the Sarawak State Legislative Assembly Special Select
Committee on Flora and Fauna, Sarawak Forest Department, Kuching, Malaysia, 1985.
16. Campbell, A. C., “Traditional Wildlife Populations and Their Utilization, ” Which Way Botswana WiZdZife? proceedings of the Symposium of the Kalahari Conservation Society,
Gaborone, Botswana, Apr. 15-16, 1983.
17. Campbell, A. C., The Use of Wild Food Plants
and Drought in Botswana (Gaborone, Botswana: National Museum, no date).
18, Castleberry, R, M,, Crum, C. W., and Krull, C. F.,
“Genetic Yield Improvement of U.S. Maize
Cultivars Under Varying Fertility and Climatic
Environments,” Crop Science 24(1):33-36,
15.
1984.
19, Chang, T, T., Adair, C. R., and Johnston, T. H,,
Smithsonian Institution, 1984).
25. Davis, R. A., Finley, K. J., and Richardson, W. J,,
The Present Status and Future Management
of Arctic Marine Mammals in Canada (Govern-
nomic Botany 38(2):161-178, 1984.
27, Duvick, D. N., “Plant Breeding: Past Achievements and Expectations for the Future, ” Economic Botany 40(3):289-297’, 1986.
28, Dyer, M. I., Detling, J. K., Coleman, D. C., and
tematic and Ecology,
Biolog: An Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective, M.E. Soulb and B.A. Wilcox (eds.) (Sunder-
land, MA: Sinauer Associates, 1980).
33. Fowler, G., “Report on Grassroots Genetic
Conservation Efforts,” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.
34, Frankel, O. H., and SOU16, M, E., Conservation
Ch. 2—importance of Biological Diversify
and Evolution (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge
University Press, 1981).
35 Fulton, R. W., “Nicotianas as Experimental Virus IIosts, ” ,\’icotiana: Procedures for Experimental Use, Technical Bulletin 1586, R.D. Durbin (cd. ) (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, 1979).
36< Gadgil, M., and Vartak, V. D., “Sacred Gro\res
of Maharashtra: An Inventory, Glimpses of
[ndian Ethnobotan~, S.K. Jain (cd.) (IXew Delhi,
Bombay, Calcutta, India: Oxford and IBH Publishing Co,, 1981).
37. Hagen, K. S., and Bishop, G. W., “Use of Supplemental Foods and Behavioral Chemicals to
Increase the Effectiveness of Natural Enemies, ” l?io]ogica] control and Insect Pest .Vlanagement, D,W, []avis, et a], (eds) (Oakland, CA:
University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences, 1979).
38 Hamilton, L. S., and King, P. N., Tropical ~orested Watersheds: HtiVdrologic and Soils Response to Major Uses or Conversions (Boulder,
39.
CO: Westview Press, 1983),
Hamilton, 1.. S., and Snedaker, S.C. (eds.),
Handbook for ,blangro~~e Area Management
●
57
46. IRRI Cropping Systems Program, 1973 Annual
Report (Los Banes, Philippines: The International Rice Research Institute, 1973),
47. Jabs, C., The Heirloom Gardener (San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books, 1984).
48. Janzen, D. H., “Guanacaste National Park:
Tropical Ecological and Cultural Restoration, ”
project report to Servicio de Parques Nacionales de Costa Rica, Fundacion de Parques Nacionales de Costa Rica, Fundacion N’eotropica,
Nature Conservancy International Program.
Department of Biology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 1986,
49 Kaplan, E. H., A Field Guide to Coral Reefs of
the Caribbean and Florida Including Bermuda
and the Bahamas (Boston, MA: Houghton Mif-
flin, 1982).
50 Kavanagh, M., “Planning Considerations for
a System of ~National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries in Sarawak, ” Sara~ak Gazet/e 61 :1529, 1985.
51. Kellert, S. R., “Americans’ Attitudes and
Knowledge of Animals, ” Transactions of the
45th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 1980 (Washington, DC:
(Honolulu, HI: East-West Center, 1984).
40. Harlan, J, R., crops and Man (Madison, WI:
American Society of Agronomy, 1975),
41 Harris, I.., “Current Public Perceptions, Attitudes, and Desires on Natural Resources Management, ’ Transactions of the 50th North
Wildlife Management Institute, 1980].
52. Kennedy, J. A., “Protected Areas for Teaching
and Research: The Universit~’ of California Experience, ” National Parks, Conservation, and
American Wild]ife and Natura] Resources Conference [Washington, DC: Wildlife Manage-
Miller (eds.) (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1984).
53. Khush, G, S., Ling, K. C., Aquino, R.(; ., and
Aguiero, V. M., “Breeding for Resistance to
Grassy Stunt in Rice, Plant Breeding Papers
l(4b):3-9, 1977.
54. Kido, H., Flaherty, D, L,, Bosch, D. F., and
Valero, K. A., “Biological Control of Grape
Leafhopper, California Agriculture 37:4-6,
ment Institute, 1985), pp. 68-71.
42. Harris, 1,. D., The Fragmented Forest: Island
Biogeographic Theory and the Preser~’ation of
Biotic Di~ersit~ (Chicago, IL, and London:
Universit~r of Chicago Press, 1984).
43. Henson, E. L., “An Assessment of the Conser\’ation of Animal Genetic Diversity at the
Grassroots Level, ” OTA commissioned paper,
1985.
44, Illinois Natural History Survey, “Slow Growth
and Short I,ife Spans of Illinois River Carp, ”
The Illinois .%ratural History Survey Reports
257, 1986.
45. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN], World
Conser~ation Strateg~: Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development (Gland
and Nairobi: International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources-United
Nations Environmental Program-World Wildlife Fund, 1980).
De\’elopment: The Role of Protected Areas in
Sustaining Society, J.A. McNeely and K.R.
1983,
55 Lucas, P. H. C., “How Protected Areas Can Help
Meet Society’s Evolving Needs, ” National
Parks, Conservation, and De~elopment: 7’he
Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Societ~’,
J.A. McNeely and K.R. Miller (eds.] (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1984).
56. Maser, C,, and Trappe, J.M. (eds. ), The Seen
and Unseen World of the Fa]]en Tree, General
Technical Report PNW-164 (portland, OR: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment
Station, 1984).
57. ,Ntayr, E., The Gro\~’th of Biological Thought:
58 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance
(Cam-
bridge, MA, and London: Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press, 1982).
58, McGuire, P. E., and Qualset, C.O. (eds.), Proceedings of a Symposium and Workshop on
Genetic Resources Conservation for California,
Napa, Apr. 5-7, 1984.
59. McNaughton, S. J., “Serengeti Migratory Wildebeest: Facilitation of Energy Flow by Grazing, ” Science 191:92-94, 1976.
60. McNaughton, S. J., “Grazing as an Optimization Process: Grass-Ungulate Relationships in
the Serengeti, ” American Naturalist 113:691703, 1979.
61. McNeely, J. A., and Wachtel, P. S., Power, Politics, Religion, Nature, and Animals: How the
Coalition Has Worked in Southeast Asia
(Gland, Switzerland: International Union for
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
and World Wildlife Fund, 1986).
62, Mirov, N. T., and Hasbrouck, J., The Story of
Pines (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University
Press, 1976].
63. Myers, N,, A Wealth of Wild Species: Storehouse for Human Welfare (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1983).
64. Nabhan, G., and Dahl, K., “Role of Grassroots
Activities in the Maintenance of Biological
Diversity: Living Plant Collections of North
American Genetic Resources, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.
65. National Plant Genetic Resources Board, Plant
Genetic Resources: Conservation and Use
(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1979).
66. The Nature Conservancy, Preserving Our Natural Heritage, Volume I: Federal Activities
(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1977).
67, Nikiforuk, A., “Secrets in a Snake Pit, ” A4ac]ean’s, May 28, 1984.
68, Norton, B., “Value and Biological Diversity, ”
OTA commissioned paper, 1985.
69, Okazaki, T., “Genetic Study on Population
Structure in Chum Salmon (Oncorhynchus
Keta), ” Bulletin of Far Seas Fisheries Research
Laboratory 19:25-116, 1982.
70. Okazaki, T., “Genetic Structure of Chum
Salmon (Oncorhynchus Keta) River Populations,” BuZZetin of the Japanese Society of Scientific Fisheries 49(2):189-196, 1983.
71. Oldfield, M, L., The VaZue of Conserving Ge-
netic Resources (Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-
ment of the Interior, National Park Service,
1984).
—
72, Piearce, G. D., “The Zambezi Teak Forests: A
Case Study of the Decline and Rehabilitation
of a Tropical Forest Ecosystem, ” prepared for
the 12th Commonwealth Forestry Conference,
Victoria, BC, Canada, Division of Forest Research, Kitwe, September 1985.
73. Prescott-Allen, C., and Prescott-Allen, R., The
First Resource: Wild Species in the North
American Economy (New Haven, CT, and
London: Yale University Press, 1986).
74. Prescott-Allen, R., “National Conservation
Strategies and Biological Diversity, ” a report
to International Union of Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Conservation for
Development Centre (Gland, Switzerland: September 1986),
75, Randall, A,, “An Economic Perspective on the
Valuation of Biological Diversity, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.
76. Randall, A., “Human Preference, Economics,
and the Preservation of Species, ” The Preservation of Species, B. Norton (cd. ) (Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986].
77. Rick, C. M., “Collection, Preservation, and Use
of Exotic Tomato Genetic Resources, ” Proceedings of a Symposium and Workshop on
Genetic Resources Conservation for California,
Napa, P.E, McGuire a n d C,O, Qualset (eds.],
Apr. 5-7, 1984.
78. Rick, C. M,, and Fobes, J. F., “Allozymes of Galapagos Tomatoes: Polymorphism, Geographic
Distribution, and Affinities, ” Evolution 29:443457, 1975.
79. Russell, W. A,, “Dedication: George F. Sprague,
Corn Breeder and Geneticist ,“ PZant Breeding
Reviews. Volume Z , J. Janick [cd.) (Westport,
CT: AVI Publishing Co., 1984).
80. Saenger, P., Hegerl, E. J,, and Davie, J. D. S.,
Global Status of Mangrove Ecosystems, Commission on Ecology Papers 3 (Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of
Nature and Natural Resources, 1983).
81, Sedell, J. R., Bisson, P. A., June, J. A., and
Speaker, R. W., “Ecology and Habitat Requirements of Fish Populations in South Fork Hoh
River, Olympic National Park, ” EcoZogicaZ Research in National Parks of the Pacific Northwest: Proceedings, Zd Conference on Scientific
Research in the NationaZ Parks, 1979, E.E. Star-
key, J,F, Franklin, and J.W. Matthews (eds.),
Oregon State University, Forest Research Laboratory, Corvallis, 1982.
82. Smart, P., The Illustrated Encyclopedia of the
Butterfly World (London: Salamander Books,
1976).
Ch. 2—/mportance
83. Smith, G. C., and Alderdice, D., “Public Responses to National Park Environmental Policy, ” Envjronrnent and ~ehat~or 11(3)329-350,
1979.
84, Smith, H. H., “The Genus as a Genetic Resource, Nicotiana: Procedures for Experimental Use, Technical Bulletin 1586, R.D. Durbin (cd.) (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, 1979).
85< Soul;, M. E., “Thresholds for Survival: Maintaining Fitness and Evolutionary Potential, ”
Conser~ation Biolog: An Evolutionary-Ecologica] Perspective, M. E. Soule and B.A. Wilcox
86,
87.
88.
89
(eds.) (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates,
1980).
Stanfield, R. L., “In the Same Boat, ” National
~ourna~, Aug. 16, 1986, pp. 1992-1997.
Swaminathan, M. S., “Rice, Scientific American January 1984, pp. 81-93.
Tiner, R. W., Wetlands of the United States:
Current Status and Recent Trends (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish
and Wildlife Service, 1984].
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Impacts of Applied Genetics: Microorganisms, Plants, and Animals, OTA-HR-132
(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office, April 1981).
90. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation,
OTA-O-206 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1984).
91. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Grassroots Conservation of Biological
Diversit~ in the United States—Background Paper ,#1, OTA-BP-F-38 (Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office, February 1986).
92. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural
Statistics 1981 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981).
of Biological Diversity
●
59
93< U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, An Assessment of the Forest and Range
Land Situation in the United States, Forest Resource Report 22 (Washington, DC: 1981).
94, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park
Service, Index: National Park System and Related Areas as ofJune 1, 1982 (Washington, DC:
1982).
95, U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Bureau of the Census,
1980 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation (Washington,
DC: 1982).
96. Vartak, V. D., and Gadgil, M., “Studies on Sacred Groves Along the Western Ghats From
Maharashtra to Goa: Role of Beliefs and Folklores, ” Glimpses of Indian Ethnobotan~r, S.K.
Jain (cd.) (New Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta, India:
Oxford and IBH Publishing Co., 1981).
97 Webb, M,, Environmental Affairs Office,
World Bank, Washington, DC, personal communication, June 1986.
98 Wells, S. M., Pyle, R. M., and Collins, N. M., The
IUCN Invertebrate Red Data Book (Gland,
Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, 1983).
99, Wilson, E. O., The Insect Societies (Cambridge,
MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University
Press, 1971].
100. World Resources Institute/International Institute for Environment and Development, World
Resources 1986 (New York: Basic Books, Inc.,
1986).
101 Worrall, D., A Baffin Region Economic Baseline Study: Economic De~’elopment and Tourism (Yellowknife: Government of the North-
west Territories, Department of Economic
Development and Tourism, 1984).
Chapter 3
Status of Biological Diversity
CONTENTS
Page
Highlights, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Diversity Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Ecosystem Diversity.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Species Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Genetic Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Causes of Diversity Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Development and Degradation. ....,.,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Exploitation of Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Vulnerability of Isolated Species, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Complex Causes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Circumstantial Evidence ...,.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Data for Decisionmaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Chapter 3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Tables
Page
Table No.
3-1. Status of Animal Species unselected Industrial Countries . . . . . . . . . . . .
3-2. Summary of Data From Endangered Plant Species Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3-3. Data unthreatened Plant Species of Selected Oceanic Islands . . . . . . . .
3-4. Endangered African Cattle Breeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3-5. Crops Grown or Imported by the United States With a Combined
Average Annual Value of $l00 Million or More. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3-6. Oceanic Islands With More Than 50 Endemic Plant Species. . . . . . . . . .
72
73
73
75
77
81
Figures
Page
Figure No.
3-1. Currently Described Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
3-2. Changes in Wetlands Since the 1950s. ....,.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
3-3. Past and Projected World Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
BoxBOX NO,
Page
3-A. Biological Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3-B. Typical Excerpts From Development Assistance Agency Reports
Addressing Environmental Constraints to Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
3-C, Definitions of Threatened Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Chapter 3
Status of Biological Diversity
●
●
●
A general consensus exists that biological diversity is being lost or degraded
in most regions of the world, but acute threats are largely localized. Despite
a weak knowledge base and lack of precise measurements, enough is now known
to direct activities to critical areas.
Concern over the loss of diversity have been defined almost exclusively in terms
of species extinction. Although extinction is perhaps the most dramatic aspect
of the problem, it is by no means the whole problem. The consequence is a
distorted definition of the problem, which fails to account for the various interests concerned and may misdirect how concerns should be addressed.
The immediate causes of diversity loss usually relate to unsustainable resource
development, but the root causes for such development are complex issues
of population growth, economic and political organization, and human attitudes. The complexity of the causes implies a need for multi-faceted approaches
that deal with both the immediate and the root causes of diversity loss.
Since life began, extinction has always been
a part of evolution. Mass extinctions occurred
during a few periods, apparently the results of
relatively abrupt geological or climatic changes.
But in most periods, the rate of species formation has been greater than the rate of extinctions, and biological diversity has gradually increased. Recently in evolutionary history, the
human species has derived great economic
value from ecosystem, species, and genetic
diversity and recognized the intrinsic values
of diversity. But now that the values are being
recognized, there is evidence that the world
may be entering another period of massive reduction in diversity. This time, humans are the
cause, and it appears that the consequence will
be loss of a substantial share of the Earth’s valuable resources.
Diversity is abundant at a global level. About
1.7 million species of plants and animals have
been named, classified, and described (57). (Descriptions are only superficial for most of these.)
The remainder are still unidentified (figure 3-I).
It is estimated that the world contains 5 to 10
million species, and many of these have hundreds or even thousands of distinct genetic
types. A recent inventory of insect species in
the canopy of a tropical forest suggests that
many more insect species may exist than previously thought, pushing the estimate for the
total of all species to as high as 30 million (14).
Understanding of biological diversity issues
has improved in recent years, in terms of knowing the extent of diversity and understanding
the causes and consequences of changes. Enough
information is available in all regions of the
world to intervene in the processes that cause
diversity loss.
Drastic reductions in populations of wild animals and plants are not new and have long been
recognized as consequences of over-intensive
hunting, fishing, and gathering. For example,
great bison herds of North America were depleted in the 19th century, as were stocks of
various whales and bird species (52). The now
barren hills of southern China’s coasts and is63
64 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
Figure 3-1 .—Currently Described Species
2°/0 Bacteria
3°/0 Vertebrates
8°\0 Other
invertebrates
and protozoa
/
Chesapeake Bay over the past two decades is
an example well known to Congress, which has
supported several initiatives to improve understanding of the complex syndrome of overfishing, pollution, and hydrologic changes related
to the region’s development.
SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, 19S6.
Acceleration of resource degradation and
diversity loss is partly a consequence of population growth, especially in rural areas of developing countries, where compound growth
rates are often more than 1 percent per year.
It is also a consequence of technologies developed over the past century that have enabled
humans to devastate natural ecosystems even
where population densities or growth rates are
moderate. For example, modern drainage techniques and market conditions make accelerated
wetland drainage possible in the United States,
and veterinary drugs and modern well-drilling
machinery enable African farmers to build livestock herds above the natural carrying capacity of their rangelands,
lands were deforested 1,000 years ago (22). Erosion from the deforested and overgrazed Armenian hills, which eventually led to the demise
of productive agriculture in Mesopotamia, apparently began over 2000 years ago (21). These
kinds of changes undoubtedly caused local and
regional losses of diversity,
Accelerated loss of diversity is also caused
by modern transportation, which reduces the
effect of geographic barriers important in the
evolution of diversity. Exotic species, diseases,
and pests were for centuries carried across
oceans, mountains, and deserts by hundreds
of people traveling in ships and on foot, but now
they are carried by hundreds of thousands of
people traveling in trucks and airplanes.
What is new today is the scale on which resource degradation is occurring and thus the
rate at which diversity is apparently being reduced. Fishing, hunting, and gathering beyond
the capacity of ecosystems continues today, but
the effects are being greatly exacerbated by
degradation of ecosystems and significant reductions in natural areas. The decline of fisheries and sharp reduction of diversity in the
Biologists and agriculturalists have thus become alarmed about the scale of plant and animal resource degradation during the last two
to three decades. The alarm stems from observations of extensive reductions in habitat, coupled with a growing understanding of how such
changes adversely affect diversity. (Key concepts that have aided this understanding are
described in box 3-A.)
fungi, &Id ferns
140/0 F
plants
Of the currently described species, insects make up more
than half the total. The number of flowering plants described
are less than one-third of the percentage of insects.
NOTE” Percentages rounded to nearest whole number
DIVERSITY Loss
The problem of diversity loss is broader than
extinction of species because diversity occurs
at each level of biological organization.
●
Ecosystem diversity: A landscape interspersed with agricultural fields, grasslands,
and woodlands has more diversity than the
Ch. 3—Status of Biological Diversity
65
Box 3-A.-Biological Concepts
Trends in changing biological diversity cannot be eqsured directly; so many species exist that
costs of inventories would be too high. Rather, trends.~~ be inferred by applying biological concepts and by observing changes in habitats. Several biological concepts ‘are relevant: ●
●
●
●
●
●
Species-area relationship: Large sites tend to have more species than smail sites. [So] When
the areas of diverse natural ecosystems are reduced by land development or by degradation,
diversity is reduced. From analysis of many sets of empirical data, scientists have derived a
mathematical equation that can be used to predict the decrease in number of species that can
be expected following a reduction in habitat area (5).
Provinciality effect: Diversity of species and populations separated by geographic barriers, usually
increases over time. But when species or varieties are carried across these barriers, as with
the introduction of an exotic organiwn, provinciality is abruptly lost. Rapid loss of diversity
can follow if native species have no defense against a exotic pathogen or pest, or if the exotic
organism competes more aggressively for habitat (44) Examples include the introductions of
Dutch elm disease to the United States, of cattle to California, of the paperbark tree to Florida,
and of goats to many oceanic islands.
Narrow endemism: Some species recur only within very restricted geographic ranges. This
group includes many species that have evolved on islands, in mountaintop forests, in isolated
lakes or other aquatic zones such as coral reefs, in areas with Mediterranean climates, including California, Western Australia, the Cape of South Africa, Chile, and the Mediterranean Basin countries. Areas with a high proportion of narrow endemic species contribute to global
diversity more than other areas with similar numbers of species but less endemism. Thus, biological degradation in such areas reduces diversity more than it would elsewhere.
Species richness: Some ecosystems have many more species than others. Generaily, species
richness is greatest in equatorial regions, and it decreases toward the poles. It is generaliy greater
in warmer or wetter places than in colder or drier places. Thus, the hot, wet tropical forests,
which cover only 7 percent of the Earth’s land area may have about half of the Earth’s terrestrial plants and animals (30).
Species interdependence: Interdependence can take a variety of forms. Symbiosis occurs when
one or both of two species benefit from association. Mutualism occurs when neither species
can survive without the other under natural conditions. Commensalism refers to associations
in which one benefits and the other is unaffectad.
Natural vulnerability: Vulnerability to extinction varies with several factors. Narrow endemics
are perhaps most vulnerable. Rare-species maybe less susceptible to catastrophe if widely dispersed, but dispersion may lessen their chances for successful mating. Other species relatively
vulnerable to extinction include the following: top-level carnivores, species with poor colonizing ability, those with colonial nesting habits; migratory species, those that depend on unreliable resources, and species with little evolutionary experience with perturbations.
same landscape after most of the woodlands are converted to grassland and
cropland.
Species diversity: A rangeland with 100
species of annual and perennial grasses
and shrubs has more diversity than the
same land after grazing has eliminated or
●
greatly reduced the frequency of the perennial grass species.
Genetic diversity: Economically useful
crops are developed from wild plants by
selecting valuable inheritable characteristics. Thus, the wild ancestral plants contain many genes not found in today’s crop
55 . Technologles
TO
Ma!ntaln
Blologlcal
D\versity
plants, A global agricultural environment
that includes domestic varieties of a crop
(such as corn) and the crop’s wild ancestors has more diversity than the same environment after the wild ancestors are eliminated to make space for more domestic
crops.
The quality of information used to assess the
loss of biological diversity varies greatly for
different ecosystems and different parts of the
world. In general, both data and theories are
better developed for temperate than for tropical biology; better for birds, mammals, and
flowering and coniferous plants than for other
classes of organisms; and better for the few major crop and livestock species used in modern
agriculture than for the many species used in
traditional agriculture.
Ecosystem Diversity
Natural ecosystem diversity has declined in
the United States historically (26), and no evidence suggests that this long-term trend has
been arrested. By comparing a nationwide evaluation of potential natural vegetation (PNV)
with data on existing land uses from the 1967
Conservation Needs Inventory, scientists estimate what portion of land in the United States
is still occupied by natural vegetation (26). This
study estimates a percent change in area for
each ecosystem type (each PNV) since presettlement times.
The greatest area reduction was 89 percent
for the Tule Marsh PNV in California, Nevada,
and Utah, mainly due to agricultural development. Twenty-three ecosystem types that once
covered about half the conterminous United
States now cover only about 7 percent. The agricultural States of Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana
have lost the highest proportions of their natural terrestrial ecosystems (92, 89, and 82 percent, respectively),
States with the lowest losses were Nevada,
Arizona, and New Hampshire (4, 7, and 12 percent, respectively), This assessment does not
imply that 96 percent of Nevada is in the same
condition that it was 400 years ago, The study
did not assess degradation of areas still oc-
cupied by natural vegetation; rather, it indicated
the areas whose uses remain unchanged. Also,
the study was unable to consider some important ecosystem types, such as riparian and wetland areas, which are not included in the PNV
categories (26).
Wetlands inventories are conducted by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, The estimated
total wetland area in the conterminous States
in presettlement times was 87 million hectares.
This amount was reduced to 44 million by the
mid-1950s and to 40 million by the mid-1970s
(figure 3-2), Thus, half the Nation’s wetland area
was lost in about 400 years, and another 5 percent was lost in the following two decades.
Drainage for agricultural development has been
the main cause of wetland ecosystem loss (48).
Riparian ecosystems are generally too small
to be included as PNV types in major analyses.
However, riparian areas contribute disproportionately to biological diversity, especially in
the Western States, where they provide luxurious habitats compared with the adjacent uplands (9). Further, their maintenance is important to biological diversity in the streams and
lakes they border. Natural riparian (mostly
streamside) vegetation in the United States has
Figure 3-2.—Changes in Wetlands Since the 1950s
(percentage of total)
Wetlands lost
14 ”/0
\
New wetlands
3.4 ”/0
\
SOURCE: Data from Fish and Wlldllfe Service’s National Wetland Trends Study,
1982.
Ch. 3—Status of Biological Diversity
67
been reduced some 70 to 90 percent during the
last two centuries (46,54). In the Sacramento
Valley of California, for instance, the estimated
loss of riparian vegetation areas is 98.5 percent;
for Arizona, the estimate is 95 percent (45).
Where such development failures occur, restoration of more diverse farming systems can
be difficult, because topsoil, water resources,
germplasm, or knowledge of traditional farming methods have been lost (11,25).
The diversity of agricultural ecosystems, or
agroecosy stems, is also being reduced. System
diversity is high in regions where agricultural
land is divided into relatively small holdings
and each farm uses a variety of crop and livestock species. As indicated in the preceding
chapter, such landscapes support natural enemies of crop pests and are likely to contain
species and varieties that can resist disease
outbreaks and survive abnormal weather. However, on the fertile land of temperate-zone farming regions, where modern machinery and agricultural chemicals are used with crop varieties
and where livestock are bred to maximize production, farmers can achieve substantial economies of scale on large holdings that specialize in relatively few crops or breeds. These less
diverse agroecosy stems are more productive
and more profitable than the older systems (36).
As yet, relatively little scientific effort is being
made to determine how biologically diverse
farming could be made more profitable. Thus,
the continuing loss of agroecosy stem diversity
in the United States and throughout the world
seems to be a function of both economic development and research priorities (10).
Most countries do not have detailed information on changes in ecosystem diversity. The
greatest concern on a global scale is for reduction of natural areas in the tropical regions,
where ecosystems are least able to recover from
degradation. Data on deforestation from many
tropical countries indicate that the closedcanopy tropical forests are being reduced by
about 11 million hectares each year. (The
deforestation rates are discussed in some detail in ref. 54.)
Time-series measurements of agroecosy stem
diversity are lacking, as is an understanding
of the advantages and disadvantages of diversity. There is also a delay between the loss of
diversity and consequent increased or decreased profits. Therefore, it seems likely that
agricultural system uniformity may continue
to increase beyond its economic optimum.
Then, a period of restoring some diversity may
occur. This process may be underway in some
areas of the United States, where multiple cropping, crop rotations, and restoration of shelterbelts are becoming more popular practices (51).
Attempts to increase farm profits by methods that reduce diversity may fail where severe
droughts or soil erosion are common and where
hot temperatures and high rainfall have resulted
in soils with little capacity to hold nutrients.
Few data are available for the developing
countries on degradation of biological diversity and other resources within the areas that
remain classified as forest. Nor are data available on changes in area or quality of grasslands,
wetlands, open-canopy forests, riparian and
coastal zones, or aquatic ecosystems. Nevertheless, compelling anecdotal evidence indicates widespread degradation of all types of
ecosystems in developing countries. In Sri
Lanka, for example, removal of coral reefs for
production of lime has had several consequences:
the disappearance of lagoons important as
nursery areas for fish,
the collapse of a fishery,
reduction of mangrove areas,
erosion of cultivated coconut land, and
salivation of wells and soil within half a
mile of the shore (41).
Documents from development assistance
agencies, such as the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID), the World Bank, the
United Nations Development Programme, and
the U.N, Food and Agriculture Organization
abound with observations of resource degradation in developing countries. Evidence of
ecosystem degradation is found in the environmental profile series that AID has been preparing since 1979, Usually the evidence is a
description of problems caused by resource
degradation rather than a report from careful
68 . Technologies TO Maintain Biological Diversity
monitoring of resource changes. At present,
reports are available on about 67 developing
countries, and nearly all describe ecosystem
degradation. In some places the problems are
the longstanding effects of unsustainable resource development; in others, the degradation
has increased dramatically over the last decade and is constraining economic development
(see box 3-B).
$pecies Diversity
Data to document changes in numbers and
distribution of species are scarce. To document
an extinction, the species must be named and
described taxonomically and accurately observed at least once, then the loss must be
recorded, Most documented extinctions have
been of large terrestrial birds, mammals, and
conspicuous flowering plants in the temperate
zone and on tropical islands.
Even for conspicuous species that have been
named, a considerable delay is involved in
recording an extinction. For example, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service conducted a status
review in 1985 for the ivory-billed woodpecker,
whose last accepted sighting had been in the
early 1950s, Had extinction been confirmed,
then the lag between extinction and confirmation of loss could have been 30 years (16). The
status of this species remains in doubt, however, because a sighting was reported in 1986
(2),
Indirect methods must be used to estimate
changes in species diversity, because complete
inventories of ecosystems would be too expensive, and because little is known of many species and the genetic attributes of populations.
Methods include:
“ preparing lists of species threatened with
extinction and monitoring those species;
● monitoring populations of relatively wellknown “indicator species” where habitats
are being changed and inferring that other
species in the same ecosystem are experiencing similar changes (indicator species
are commonly trees, birds, large mammals,
butterflies, or flowering plants); and
● using mathematical models of species-area
relationships to project extinction numbers
likely to result from various levels of habitat reduction.
Modern taxonomic description goes back to
1753, but most recognized species were described much more recently, and the majority
of species have yet to be described and named.
For most of the estimated 385,000 living plant
species, not much more is known than can be
discerned from one or a few pressed, dried herbarium specimens. Nevertheless, personnel and
financial support for the taxonomic work done
in museums, herbarium, universities, and
wildlife agencies around the world are being
reduced (8).
Lists of Threatened Species
Biologists estimate that at least two-thirds of
all species live in the tropics. For example, a
single tree in the Peruvian Amazon rain forest
was found to harbor 43 species of ant belonging to 26 genera, That is a species richness about
equal to the ant fauna of the entire British Isles
(27). But two-thirds of the named species are
in the temperate zone. This disparity reflects
the historical distribution of taxonomists. In the
United States, for example, about 500 plant taxonomists work with 18,000 species—a ratio of
36 species to 1 taxonomist. Tropical vascular
plant species number about 190,000; about 1,500
taxonomists worldwide have expertise in tropical plants, yielding a ratio of 125 to 1 (8).
Lists of threatened animal species are prepared by the Species Conservation Monitoring
Unit (SC MU) of the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.
For the United States, endangered animal lists
are prepared by the Endangered Species Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS/ESO). For both the SCMU and the
FWS/ESO, the information is better for temperate than for tropical species; better for terrestrial than for aquatic species; and better for
birds and mammals than for reptiles, amphibians, fish, and invertebrates (16). Terms used
in describing the status of threatened species
are defined in box 3-C.
Ch. 3—Status of Biological Diversity “ 69
.1
Box 30B.-Typicd Exmwpts From llwekp~f ‘%$abt#nce Agency Reports Addressing
l!hmironmmtul ; , ~ : ~.
Oev@loPm@nt
India/Pakistan
IJorder Zumds in tk [24]
TIM predmninant natural tamatrhd in tie region ~ppears to b e a l o w , o p e n - t y p e o f
drytropicaithmm fo~ i n t e r s p e r s e d D u e t o thelong a n d p e r v a d i n g i n f l u e n c e
of man arid grazing stock, the present is ,Sently} ‘ta highly degraded form of low and
. ,.
S~HW xerophytic scrub.
The Indus delta ia a cAtical area
and productivity. Mangrove zone
populations, and are a fisheries center
creeks and mudflats hold crustaeeans,ara
b subject to reduced freshwater input,
of locaI and international sigti-ficam%.
increased salinity, overfisbin~, and en
Honduras
(49)
.
~ ..
Deforestation by shifting
human tragedy is even more serious%
lmds in tie chol~t~a Vldky
back leaving a qmw pat
@is dmmatic and well publicized. The
fwnilies living on degraded
%$@dw&N!. The forest cover has been peeled
Mechanized farming adversely affaatttwl the cmvirc&&mt through encouraging soil erosion and
dwmtification,
e s p e c i a l l y
i n areas & itwdm$,ia~
,,
The P1’e$811t
million hectares
ofenvironnmtal
—.
.2%-’
. ,. ? Y!* ;,~.
~ ~ . .-
The SCMU data are gathered from an international network of correspondents identified
from research papers. For example, the person
compiling data on mammals has about 5,000
informants and contacts worldwide (16), The
lists, organized by classes of animals in geographic regions (e.g., New World mammals),
are revised on roughly a lo-year cycle, Table
3-I summarizes some of the data on threatened
animals.
Since the mid-1970s, numerous lists of threatened plant species have been prepared. Because
these are so new and most tropical regions do
not have such lists, the data cannot yet indicate rates of extinction. For the temperate zone,
70 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
Box 3-C.-Definitions of Threatened Status
Two sets of definitions are used to classify the status of threatened species. Definitions based
on the Endangered Species Act of 1973 are used in the United States. All other countries’ lists of
endangered species follow the definitions promulgated by the International Union for Conservation
of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). The two sets of definitions are technically not compatible
mainly because of differences in the concept of extinction and the IUCN inclusion of taxa rather
than species.
Three technical definitions are used for classification of status in the United States:
1. An endangered species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.
2. A threatened species is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
3. Critical habitats are areas essential for the conservation of endangered or threatened species.
The term may be used to designate portions of habitat areas, entire areas, or even areas outside
the current range of the species.
The IUCN categories include five definitions:
1. Extinct taxa are species, or other taxa such as distinct subspecies, that are no longer known
to exist in the wild after repeated search of their type localities and other locations where they
were known or were likely to have occurred.
2. Endangered taxa are in danger of extinction and their survival is unlikely if the factors causing their vulnerability or decline continue operating.
3. Vulnerable taxa are declining and will become endangered if no action is taken to intervene.
4. Rare taxa are so rare that they could be eliminated easily but are under no immediate threat
at present and have populations that are more or less stable.
5. Intermediate taxa belong in one of the above categories, but information is not sufficient to
determine exactly which one (47).
SOURCES: M.L Been. The Evolution of NationaJ Wiklfife Law [New York: Prawer Publishers, 19S3): H. %mze, “Status and Trends of Wild
Pl&t Species,” OTA commissioned paper, 1WH5.
-
however, the numbers of threatened species do
give some indication of the scope of the
problem.
Nearly all industrial countries now have lists
of threatened plant species. In Europe, all but
five countries have such lists, and four of those
five will have them soon (47), In the United
States, many lists and reports cover both the
Nation and individual States. Table 3-2 summarizes some information from the endangered
plant species lists.
In North America, about 10 percent of the
plant species are listed as rare or threatened.
Many are plants endemic to small areas in California. A higher proportion of species are listed
in Europe because of extensive threats to vegetation in the northern countries and the nar-
row endemism of many species in the Mediterranean countries. Data from the Soviet
Union emphasize horticultural plants and are
less complete than for Europe. For temperatezone Southern Hemisphere countries, the lists
are also dominated by narrow endemic plants
from the Mediterranean climate regions (47).
Oceanic islands, because of geographic isolation during the millennia of evolution, typically have a very high proportion of endemic
species. These areas are particularly vulnerable,
because they are not adapted to animals and
aggressive weeds that may be introduced by
humans, Lists of threatened plants have been
prepared for many such islands, Table 3-3 indicates how severe the threats are for islands
with 50 to 1,000 endemic species.
Ch. 3—Status of Biological Diversity
●
71
For 50 years, the trend in striped bass commercial harvest was upward, from around 2
million pounds landed in 1924 to 14.7 million
pounds in 1973. Then, the trend reversed. B}T
1983, the catch had plummeted by 90 percent
to 1.7 million pounds. The decline was believed
to be due to a combination of overfishing and
chemical contamination of the species’ hahitat (18]. Thus, a reduction in populations of
other species could be inferred from the striped
bass trend.
George
Laboratory
The ivory-billed woodpecker is presumed extinct in the
sighting occurred in 1971)
United States (last
and was thought to be extinct worldwide until the
discovery of at least two specimens in the
spring of 1986 i n eastern Cuba.
Among tropical countries, Brazil has a listing project under way. Lists covering parts of
India have been prepared and indicate about
900 threatened plant species. The Malayan Nature Society is preparing a database on threatened plants for the Malaysian peninsula. Listing projects are also complete or under way in
some nontropical developing countries, such
as Chile, Pakistan, and Nepal (47).
Inference from this indicator species was
confirmed in 1982 when a 7-year Environmental
protection Agency study indicated the extent
of the decline in the bay. Subaquatic vegetation had declined 84 percent since 1971. Areas
suffering from lack of dissolved oxygen had increased fifteenfold since 1950, and in Baltimore
Harbor at least 450 organic compounds, mostly
toxins, were identified. Corresponding dramatic
declines were documented in native animal species of the bay, including oysters, shad, and yellow perch (53).
The spotted owl is an indicator species for
diversity in old-growth forests of the Pacific
Northwest. The owl feeds primarily on flying
squirrels and other rodents of old-growth habitat. Its decline in a region is considered a sig-
W
*
- .
.
-
—
.
.
“
,
Monitoring Indicator Species
and Habitats
Inferring trends in biological diversity from
changes in the status of indicator species is a
method that relies on time-series data assembled for management of economically significant species or species of special esthetic interest. For example, striped bass (known locally
as rockfish) has been a highly valued species
since precolonial times on the east coast of the
United States, and commercial harvest data
have been tabulated for areas like the Chesapeake Bay since 1924,
credit Chesapeake Bay
once abundant
the Chesapeake, have been
exploited and are now endangered in many areas of the
estuary. The
in population of this highly valued
species has been attributed to overfishing and pollution.
f/on
72 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
.
..0
.rm
&
-K
cum
Cclh
Coco.mf=
l--
mim”m-
. .
C9mcomm
m
l-n
V3*
al
—
Ch. 3—Status of Biological Diversity
●
73
Table 3-2.—Summary of Data From Endangered Plant Species Lists
Rare and
threatened species
1,716
Species
Country/region
25,000
Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11,300
Europe a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2,000
New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23,000
South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21,100
U.S.S.R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20,000
United Statesb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
a
Exclydes European U.SSR , Azores, Canary islands, and Madeira
b
Extinct taxa
117
Endangered taxa
215
1,927
186
20
4
117
42
2,122
653
2,050
39
=20
90
107
=160
7
Excludes Hawall, Alaska and puerto R I C O
SOURCE S Davis et al Plants in Danger What Do We Know~(forthcomlng) as clted in H Synge, “Status and Trends of Wild Plants “ OTA commissioned paper 1985
Table 3-3.— Data on Threatened Plant Species
of Selected Oceanic islands
Island
Number of endemic Number listed as
speciesa
rare or threatened
Azores
...
.
Canary Islands ...
Galapagos
.
.
.
Juan Fernandez ...
Lord Howe Island . .
Madeira ... . . ...
Mauritius ., ... .
Seychelles
.
.
Socotra. ... ... . .
a E n d e m l c means the
55
569
229
118
75
131
280
30 (55”/0)
383 (670/o)
150 (66”/0)
95 (81 /0)
73 (97”/0)
86 (66”/0)
172 (61 /0)
90
73 (81 0/, )
0
0
215
species occurs only On the
132 (61
0
/0)
Island
SOURCE S Davis, et al P/ants In Danger What Do We KrIow7 (forthcoming),
as cited In H Synge ‘Status and Trends of Wtld Plant s,” OTA com
m!ssloned paper, 1985
nal that its prey and other species associated
with the habitat are also in decline (3).
Diversity losses due to pollution may be indicated by animals’ food chains, such as the
bald eagle and other fish-eating birds. Plants
susceptible to air pollution, such as lichens, may
also be useful indicators. Extensive records of
observations on smaller animals of long-standing interest to professional and amateur biologists can also gauge diversity change, The
decline of Bay Checkerspot butterflies, for example, is taken as an indication of decline of
many associated organisms in the San Francisco Peninsula area (13).
Models of Species-Area Relationships
The scale of diversity reduction can be estimated for most tropical countries only by inferences from the reduction of habitat. Nearly
all attempts to estimate global extinction rates
focus on the tropical moist forests, These eco-
systems are exceedingly species-rich, contain
areas of narrow endemism, and are undergoing extensive and rapid conversion to other
uses, Because they typically have erosion-prone
soils incapable of holding many plant nutrients
and occur where rain and heat are especially
intense, these forest ecosystems are highly susceptible to degradation. In fact, the undeveloped forests are so diverse, and the deforested,
degraded landscapes to which they are often
converted support so few species, that the
models used to estimate extinction rates generally treat the diversity of deforested landscapes in the moist tropics as negligible (43).
A recent projection of bird and floweringplant extinctions that could be caused by continued deforestation in tropical America is
based on a mathematical model of the speciesarea relationship (see box 3-A). About 92,000
flowering plant species have been described for
regions where the forested area for recent
human-caused deforestation was about 6.9 million square kilometers (43). Over the next 15
to 20 years, the forested area will be reduced
to about 3,6 million square kilometers if the rate
of deforestation remains at the level of the
1970s. The mathematical relationship between
area and species numbers, derived by analysis
of some 100 empirical data sets (5), indicates
that this reduced forest could be expected to
support about 79,000 species. Thus, a 15-percent reduction in numbers of species is projected for the near future.
Deforestation is expected to continue for
more than 20 years, however, and it seems likely
that it will accelerate as the rapidly growing
human populations of tropical American coun-
74 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
tionship as used for plants, a 60-percent reduction of the original forest area over the next 15
to 20 years could be expected to cause eventual extinctions of 86 bird species. The worstcase calculation, with reduction of the Amazon forest to the area of already established national parks, projected that 487 types of birds,
or about 70 percent of the species, could become extinct (43).
Several assumptions tend to underestimate
extinction rates. For example, extinctions resulting from reduced provinciality are ignored
in the calculations, as are effects of the narrow
endemism that occurs in several parts of tropical American forests. On the other hand, the
assumption that none of the plant and bird species will find habitats they need after deforestation seems an exaggeration. Such projections
may be helpful in stimulating institutional responses to prevent the worst cases from occurring. Many nations’ governments have begun
to take steps in the past decade to protect endangered habitats. The worst-case calculations
are thus not predictions, but indications of the
direction and scale of the projected trend.
Distracting Numbers Game
US
and
Service
Northern spotted owl requires large tracts of Pacific
Northwest old-growth forest as habitat. If harvesting
of old-growth continues at current rate, the habitat for
this species could disappear within the next
two decades.
tries need more rapid resource development.
A “worst-case” calculation indicates that if the
forests were reduced until they covered only
National Parks and their equivalents that had
been established by 1979 (about 97,000 square
kilometers), then the final effect could be as high
as a 66-percent reduction (43).
About 704 species of land birds have been
described in the Amazon region of tropical
America. Using the same mathematical rela-
Projections of alarming losses in species
diversity have attracted attention to this issue,
But discrepancies among the estimated extinction rates have called into question the credibility of all such estimates. In one sense, the
numbers themselves have become an issue, confusing policy makers and the general public and
possibly detracting from efforts to deal with the
causes and consequences of diversity loss (28),
This numbers game also has defined the problem of loss mainly in terms of species extinction, which may be the most dramatic aspect
of the diversity question, but it is only part of
the problem. Further, global and national data
and projections may mask the localized nature
of resource degradation, diversity loss, and the
consequences of both. Large inaccessible areas
of forest, for example, may make the global
deforestation rate seem moderate, but destruction of especially diverse forests in local areas
of Australia, Bangladesh, India, the Philippines,
Ch. 3—Status of Biological Diversity
—
Brazil, Colombia, Madagascar, Tanzania, and
West Africa proceeds at catastrophic rates (32).
Genetic Diversity
Ideally, concern about loss of biological diversity should be focused on genetically distinct
populations, rather than on species (13,16,34).
But with so little information available about
the majority of wild species, this seems impractical.
For agricultural species, on the other hand,
the concern is mainly about genetic diversity.
The species do not seem to be in danger of extinction, but the variety of genes in many crops
and livestock breeds is being reduced (39).
Many distinct types are being eliminated as improved breeds and varieties that are genetically
similar are gaining more widespread use. Ironically, success in exploiting genetic resources
for agriculture threatens the genetic diversity
on which future achievements depend.
With livestock, the principal diversity loss involves developing-countries’ breeds being
replaced by imported ones, The threat seems
●
75
greatest for those species in which artificial insemination is widely used, and it is particularly
a problem with cattle, for which over 270 distinct breeds exist. For farmers with only a few
cows, artificial insemination is cheaper than
keeping a bull. But developing countries lack
facilities to collect and freeze semen from locally adapted breeds, so semen is usually imported from commercial studs in industrial
countries. Threatened breeds include the criO 11 O of Latin America and the Sahiwal and several others from Africa (see table 3-4) (15).
Llama and alpaca—as well as vicuna and
guanaco, their wild relatives—are South American species used for meat, as beasts of burden, and for their hair and pelts. Numbers of
all four species have declined sharply since the
Spanish conquest of the Incan empire, and loss
of genetic diversity has almost surely occurred,
though it is unmeasured (15).
Poultry and swine breeds are also moving
toward genetic homogeneity, because controlled breeding has been rapid and intensive
to produce varieties suitable for modern commercial production. Poultry breeding has been
Table 3-4.—Endangered African Cattle Breeds
—
Breed
Mutura
Lagune
.,
Location
Purpose
draft
Nlgerla
‘- Meat,
.,
...
.
Benin,
Ivory Coast
Brunede I’Atlas, Morocco,
Algeria,
Tunisia
Mpwapwa ., .Tanzania
Meat
Meat
Milk
Baria, ., . . . . Madagascar Milk, meat
Creole
.
.
.
Mauritius
Milk, meat,
draft
Kuri
.,
.
.,
Chad
Milk, meat
Kenana.
Butana
.,
.
.
—
Sudan
Milk
Sudan
Milk
Reasons for decline in number
Civil war, crossbreeding, lack of
interest by farmers as tractors
become available
Crossbreeding, lack of interest by
farmers because of small mature
size (125 kg) and low milk yields
Crossbreeding to imported breeds
Lack of sustained effort to develop
and maintain new breed
Crossbreeding
Crossbreeding
Political instability, numbers
reduced by rinderpest and
drought
Crossbreeding (artificial
insemination) to imported dairy
breeds, loss of major habitat to
development scheme
Crossbreeding
Advantages
Trypanotolerant ,a hardy, good draft
animal, low mortality
Trypanotolerant, adapted to humid
environment
Adapted to arid zones
Adapted, dual-purpose
Adapted, dual-purpose
Adapted, multiple-purpose
High milk production, ability to float
and swim in Lake Chad, tolerant
of heat and humidity
High milk potential; adapted to hot,
dry environment
High milk potential; adapted to hot,
semiarid environment
aAblllty to survive Trypanosome In feet Ion (spread by tsetse fly), which normally causes African slee Ping sickness In cattle
Prospects and Plans for Data Banks on Animal Genetic Resources, An/ma/ Genetfc Resources Conservation (Rome Food and
SOURCE Adapled from K O Adenlj[
Agriculture Orgamzatlon, 1984) as cited In H Fltzhugh et al “Status and Trends of Domesticated Antmals, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985
dominated by a few companies (probably fewer
than 20 worldwide) (15). These firms typically
retain a number of breeds from which to make
selections and crosses, but they do not find it
cost-effective to retain stocks that might prove
useful more than 10 years in the future (7). Meanwhile, breeds adapted to traditional farm conditions are becoming rare in industrial countries, because fewer farmers want them and the
number of small hatcheries producing them has
declined sharply. Poultry breeds from industrial countries are being exported to urban markets in many developing countries, but no evidence exists that these have affected the genetic
diversity of poultry in rural areas of developing countries.
Hundreds of plant species have been domesticated, and traditional farming systems con-
tinue to use many species. But modern agriculture produces most human sustenance,
plant-derived fibers, and industrial materials
from only a few species, Three-quarters of human nutrition is provided by just seven species:
wheat, rice, maize, potato, barley, sweet potato,
and cassava (31). Within the United States, the
top 30 crops account for $57.7 billion in farm
sales and imports annually, which is 60 percent of the combined value of all U.S. agricultural plant resources (see table 3-5) (39).
Within these 30 crops, modern varieties have
replaced traditional ones, reducing diversity
between and within agricultural sites and genetic populations. The narrow species and genetic base of modern agriculture generates two
distinct concerns: 1) the extinction of genes,
which reduces opportunities to produce new
Ch. 3—Status of Biological Diversity
Table 3-5.—Crops Grown or reported by the
United States With a Combined Annual Value of
$100 Million
or More
(average 1976 to 1980)
-
Average annual value ‘
Crop
(U.S. $ millions)
11,278
10,412
6,475
4,233
3,925
2,851
1,723
1,525
1,206
1,163
1,150
1,147
1,054
1,051
1,016
815
760
747
706
672
527
517
393
368
365
355
349
314
304
287
252
219
198
192
189
186
179
167
164
158
156
155
148
146
144
143
142
142
136
130
128
116
116
110
102
100
Soybean
Corn
Wheat
Cotton
Coffee
Tobacco
Sugarcane
Grape
Potato
Rice
Sweet orange
Sorghum
Alfalfa
Tomato
Cacao
Apple
Beet crops
Peanut
Rubber
Barley
Lettuce
Common bean
Sunflower
Banana
Cole crops
Almond
Peach
Coconut
Oats
Onion
Strawberry
Grapefruit
Chrysanthemum
Cucumber
Melon
Pineapple
Roses
Celery
Walnut
Peppers/c hilis
Jute
Plum/prune
Sweet cherrylsour cherry
Pear
Olive
Oil palm
Carrot
Pea
Lemon
Bermudagrass
Tea
Watermelon
Cashew
Sweet potato
Pecan
Azalea/rhododendron
SOURCE C Prescott-Allen and A Prescott-Allen, The Ffrsf Resources W//d Spec~es IrI the North Arner/can Economy (New Haven, CT, and London
Yale Unlverslty Press, 1986)
●
77
varieties better suited for production at particular sites; and 2) the increased uniformity of
crops, which makes them more vulnerable to
pests and pathogens. Of these two, extinction
of genes is the greater problem. For annual
crops, uniform genetic vulnerability can be
quickly corrected as long as a high degree of
genetic diversity is maintained for the crop
somewhere. Gene extinction, however, cannot
be reversed.
Published information on status and trends
of crop diversity usually consists of impressions
by plant breeders and others on the loss of cultivated varieties or threats to wild relatives of
crops, such as: “it may not be long before landraces are irretrievably lost” or “many locally
adapted varieties have been replaced by modern varieties” (39). Such reports have been collected and evaluated by the International Board
on Plant Genetic Resources (IBPGR). IBPGR’s
information has stimulated conservation action
and has helped to determine general collecting priorities for protection of genetic resources.
Plant breeders and germplasm collectors generally concur that crop genes have been lost
and that losses are still occurring rapidly and
widely in many crops (39), in spite of progress
with collection and offsite maintenance programs (see ch. 6). Three problem areas include:
1, crops that have low priority for IBPGR but
are of major economic importance to the
United States (e.g., grape, alfalfa, lettuce,
sunflower, oats, and tobacco);
2. crops that despite being a high international priority still lack adequate provision
for long-term conservation (including those
maintained as living collections rather than
as seeds, such as cacao, rubber, coconut,
coffee, sugarcane, citrus, banana); and
3. wild relatives of major crops, which, except for sugarcane and tomato, are represented in collections by extremely small
samples.
Detailed assessments of the status and trends
of genetic diversity are lacking, even for crops
whose collection is well advanced, such as rice,
78 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
-—
●
maize, potato, tomato, and bean. Such assessments are needed to understand the dynamics
of crop genetic change and its relationship to
social and economic change (39).
The status of diversity conservation for economically important timber trees lies between
that of wild plants gathered for economic use
and that of agricultural plants. Some commercial tree species are protected by parks and
other protected natural areas, and the diversity of some is at least partially captured in
offsite seed collections. In many extensively
managed forests, commercial tree species regenerate naturally after logging, fire, or other
disturbances, and local genetic diversity is
maintained. However, replanting with stock
propagated from selected parents and from
tree-breeding programs is a common practice
with some trees, such as Douglas fir, and gene
pools for these species are being gradually
altered (19).
The genetic resources of commercial trees
and other economic plants and animals in developing countries are being eroded by conversion of forest areas to agriculture or grazing
use. An international panel recently identified
some 300 tree species or important tree populations (presumably with unique genetic characteristics) that are endangered (17), Thus, in
the United States and developing countries
where U.S. agencies provide assistance, protection of natural gene pools of commercial
trees and other nondomesticated economic species could become an objective in development
planning (see ch. 11). At present, economic species not used in agriculture or horticulture are
poorly represented in genetic conservation
programs.
CAUSES OF DIVERSITY LOSS
Forces that contribute to the worldwide loss
of biological diversity are varied and complex,
and stem from both direct and indirect pressures. Historically, concern has focused on the
commercial exploitation of specific threatened
or endangered species. But now attention is also
being focused on indirect threats more sweeping in scope (30).
Development and Degradation
Economic development usually entails making sites more favorable for a manageable number of economic activities. Consequently, the
changed landscape has fewer habitats and supports fewer species. Habitats may be affected
by offsite development too—by pollution, for
example, or changed hydrology. Some development, such as logging in a mosaic pattern
through a large forested area, mimics natural
processes and may result in a temporary increase in diversity.
But poorly planned or badly implemented development, such as agricultural expansion without investment in soil conservation, can severely disrupt biological productivity, and it can
start a self-reinforcing cycle of degradation, For
example, soil erosion reduces soil fertility,
which in turn can reduce growth of plants for
cover, leading to more soil erosion and to rapid
depletion of diversity as the site becomes suitable, for fewer and fewer species (51). Other
causes of site degradation include grazing pressures, unnatural frequency or severity of fires,
and excessive populations of herbivores (such
as rabbits) where predators are eliminated. Arid
and semiarid sites are especially susceptible to
degradation from such pressures. Species may
be reduced by one-half to two-thirds without
outright conversion of the land use (33).
Modernization of farming systems is also a
cause of diversity loss. Such systems often include many species of crops and livestock;
genetic diversity is typically high, because cultivars and breeds adapted to the vagaries of sitespecific conditions are used. To achieve productivity gains, however, traditional systems
are being replaced with modern methods. Capital inputs, such as manufactured fertilizers and
feeds, are used to compensate for site-specific
differences, Thus, it is possible to replace traditional crops and livestock with fewer varieties
Ch. 3—Status of Biological Diversity
79
+
-*
,
P
A A
hi
‘.
‘
.
\
‘
a
.
.
Photo credff U N Phofo 152 843’/( Muldoon
Overgrazing In Burkina Faso—one major cause of diversity loss.
bred to give high yields under more artificial
conditions.
The loss of traditional agroecosystems is not
restricted to developing countries. Native
American farming systems that interplant corn
with squash, numerous types of beans, sunflowers, and many semidomesticated species
are reduced to isolated areas now and continue
to be abandoned. These systems and crop varieties have been described in anthropological
literature, but they are lost before being
scrutinized by agricultural scientists.
Agricultural development may cause abrupt
disappearance of traditional varieties, as with
the replacement of traditional wheat in the Punjab region of India, or it may be gradual, as with
fruit and vegetable varieties in the united States
and livestock breeds in Europe, Locally adapted
varieties may become extinct in a single year
if germplasm for a traditional variety is lost because of a catastrophe or is destroyed to con-
trol a disease. Examples include traditional
grain varieties that were replaced with modern ones in Africa when seed was eaten during the recent famine, and local swine populations that were exterminated in Haiti and the
Dominican Republic to control a disease and
then replaced with modern breeds (15).
Exploitation of Species
As noted earlier, concern with loss of biological diversity historically focused on extinctions
or population losses that resulted from excessive hunting and gathering. whales, cheetahs,
passenger pigeons, bison, the North Atlantic
herring, the dodo, and various orchids are all
examples of organisms hunted or gathered in
excess (30).
Today the direct threat to wildlife remains.
Numerous monkeys and apes are endangered
by overhunting, mainly to supply the demand
80 . Technologies TO Maintain Biological Diversity
from 71,000 to only about 13,500 today. T h e
most spectacular decline has been that of the
black rhino–from 65,000 to 7,000 in the past
15 years. Whole populations of black rhino have
been almost totally eliminated over the past 10
years in Mozambique, Chad, Central African
Republic, Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, and Angola. In the past 2 years, Mozambique has lost
the white rhinoceros for the second time in this
century—a dubious achievement indeed (29),
The main reason for this catastrophic decline
since 1975 is due to the illegal killing of the animal, mostly for its horn. In the early 1980s about
one-half of the horn put onto the world market
went to North Yemen where it is used for the
making of attractive dagger handles, while the
remaining half went to eastern Asia where it
is used mostly to lower fever, not—as often
supposed—as an aphrodisiac (6).
Plant species are also subject to overharvest.
A cycad plant species was reported eliminated
in Mexico during just one year when 1,200 specimens were exported to the United States (55).
Vulnerability of Isolated Species
credit: D.
The green turtle is an example of a species threatened
by direct factors, such as exploitation of adults and
eggs, and by indirect factors, including nesting beach
destruction, ocean pollution, and incidental catch in
shrimp trawls.
from medical research institutions. Some 108
primate species are hunted for an international
trade worth about $4 million annually (30). For
many, perhaps most of these, the capturing
process is very destructive. Apes such as the
gibbon are captured by shooting mother animals from the treetops and taking any infants
that survive the fall. Many of the infants die
while passing through the market system. Thus,
the 30,000 primates sold in 1982 (30) actually
compose a much higher number killed to support the trade.
The rhinoceros has declined more rapidly
over the past 15 years than any other large mammal. From 1970 to 1985 there was an almost
80-percent decrease in the numbers of rhinos,
If the range of species is restricted to a relatively small area, such as an island or a mountaintop forest, a single development project or
the introduction of competing or exotic species
can lead to loss of diversity. Many recorded extinctions have been animals and plants from
oceanic islands (see table 3-6) (52). Some of these
areas, such as Haiti, are infamous for deforestation and rapid rates of soil erosion. It may be
inferred that diversity loss has been and probably continues to be especially severe on such
islands.
Complex Causes
Most losses of diversity are unintended consequences of human activity, and the species
and population affected are usually not even
recognized (30). Air and water pollution, for
example, can cause diversity loss far from the
pollution’s source, Substantial gains in reducing these pressures have been achieved in industrial countries, particularly in the United
Ch. 3—Status of Biological Diversity . 81
a
With
Table 3.6.—Oceanic Islands
More Than 50 Endemic Plant Species
.—
Island
Madagascar ... ... ...
Cuba . . ... . . . . . . . . . .
New Caledonia . . . . . . . .
b
. ..., . . .
Hispaniola
New Zealand ..., . . . . . .
Sti Lanka. . . . . . . . . . . .
Taiwan. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hawaii . . ..., ..., ..., .
Jamaica. . ..., ..., ..., .
Figi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Canary Islands .,.....,..
Puerto Rico . . . . .
Caroline Islands. ,...,.. .,
Trinidad and Tobago, ...,,
Galapagos. . ..., . . . . . .
Mauritius. . . ..., ..., ...,
Ogasawara-Gunto ...,
Reunion. ..., ..., ..., .
Vanuatu. . . . . . . . ..., . . .
Tubuai ..., ..., ..., ..., . .
Comoro Islands ..., ...,
Socotra ..., ..., ..., .
Bahamas, . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sao Tome . . . . . . . . .
Marquesas Islands . . . . . . .
Samoa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Juan Fernandez ..., ...,
Cape Verde. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Madeira. . ..., ..., ..., .
Mariana Islands ..., . .
Lord How Island . . ..., ,.
Seychelles . . . . . . . . . . .
—
Endemics
=9,000
2,700
2,474
1,800
1,618
=900 C
=900
883
735
=700
383
332 C
293
215
175
172 C
151
=150
=150
S140
136
132
121
108
103
>100
95
92
86 C
81
73
73
Percentage
endemism
46
76
36
81
91
23
12
25
aExcludes Australia, New Zealand, Borneo, New Gutnea, and Aldabra
bHlspanlola comprises the natlonsof Haltl and the Domtnlcan Republlc
comlts monocoyledons
SOURCE AdaptedfromA H Gentry, ‘Endemism tnTroptcal
Versus Temperate
Plant Communltles;’ Conservation f3/o/ogy, M. Soule(ed )(Sunderland,
MA Slnauer Associates, lnc 1988), andH Synge, ’’Status and Trends
of Wdd Plants’ OTA commissioned pape~ 1985
States, since passage of the National Environmental Policy Act,
Yet pollution remains a major threat to bioIogical diversity, because abatement is often expensive and is sometimes a very complex organizational task, especially when it depends
on international cooperation. Acid rain is an
example. In Scandinavia, several fish species
have declined in numbers because of acidification of lakes; in eastern Canada, a trout species has been placed in the severely threatened
category (37), International pollution by acid
rain has recently been reported to extend far
from industrial regions into Zambia, Malaysia,
and Venezuela, for example.
Climate change is apparently being caused
by increased carbon dioxide and atmospheric
dust, which result from fossil-fuel burning and
from the release of carbon stored in vegetation
when extensive areas are converted from forest to cropland or sparsely vegetated grassland.
The expected consequences include significant
changes in temperature and rainfall patterns,
Temperature rises seem likely to occur rapidly,
at least in evolutionary terms, so diversity will
probably incur a net loss during the next century (38).
In both industrial and developing countries,
diversity is lost as land is converted from forest, grasslands, and savanna to cropland or pasture. If the land being converted will support
permanent agriculture with relatively high
yields, the effect on diversity is contained, Moderate areas of such land can support substantial populations. But much of the newly cleared
land is marginal or totally unsuitable for the
cultivation or grazing practices being applied.
As a result, extensive areas must be cleared,
especially where the land is so poor that it degrades to wasteland and is abandoned after a
few years, which is typical in the moist tropical forest regions and in semiarid areas of both
the temperate and tropical zones (30).
The underlying causes of inappropriate land
clearing are many and exceedingly complex.
Population growth, poverty, inappropriate agricultural technologies, and lack of alternative
employment opportunities are all problems far
too complex for biologists and conservationists
alone to resolve.
Population growth in itself may not seem intrinsically threatening to biological diversity.
In some industrial countries, such as the United
States and Japan, disruption of ecosystems has
been mitigated by urbanization, establishment
of parks, and land use regulation (30). But the
connections between affluent populations and
their impacts on biological diversity are obscured by the complexity of commerce. The Japanese, for example, carefully protect the diversity of their own remaining forests, but they
use large quantities of timber from forests in
other countries where controls are lax. Much
has been written about the “hamburger con-
82 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
Figure 3-3.— Past and Projected World Population
10
9
8
7
6
5
Ri
5
n
4
3
2
.
1
I
*
;E
AD
1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2100
Year
If the current growth in population continues, by the year 2000
more than 6 billion people will inhabit the world. With this
growth, irreversible environmental degradation and loss of
biological diversity can be expected.
nection” by which U.S. and European beef consumers are said to be causing loss of diversity
in tropical countries where forests are converted to pasture. The very difficult task of identifying, measuring, and mitigating such negative economic-ecologic links between nations
is increasingly important as the world economy
becomes more and more international (30).
The causal link between human population
size and diversity loss is clearer in developing
countries where population growth in rural
areas continues to be rapid, and land-use regulations do not exist or are poorly enforced. Between 1980 and 2000, rural populations are expected to increase by 500 million in the
developing world (57) (figure 3-3). where these
people continue to rely on extensive agriculture, resource degradation and diversity loss
can be expected to accelerate. The harmful impacts of population growth are also likely to
be exacerbated by development programs that
encourage large resettlements of landless people into deserts or tropical lowlands without
providing the means to sustain agricultural
productivity in such difficult sites (42).
SOURCE World Resources Institute and InternationalInstitute for Environment
and Development, World Resources 1986 (New York: Basic Books,
1986)
CONCLUSION
Biological diversity is abundant for the world
as a whole. More than 10 million species may
exist, but after more than 2oo years of study,
scientists have only named and described some
1.7 million. Many of these species contain numerous genetically distinct populations, each
with a different potential for survival and utility.
The circumstantial case is based on the
knowledge that each wild species and population depends on the habitat to which it is
adapted. Diverse natural habitats are being converted to less diverse and degraded landscapes.
On those sites, diversity has been reduced. The
sites that remain in a natural or nearly natural
condition are often fragmented patches that will
not support the diversity of larger areas.
The abundance and complexity of ecosystems, species, and genetic types have defied
complete inventory or direct assessment of
changes. But from events and circumstances
that can be measured, it can be inferred that
the rate of diversity loss is now far greater than
the rate at which diversity is created.
For domesticated agricultural plants and anireals, the concern is genetic diversity, which
must be maintained by active husbandry. Farming systems with high genetic diversity are being replaced by new systems with much lower
diversity, so husbandry of many genetic types
is abandoned. Thus, gene combinations that re-
Circumstantial Evidence
Ch. 3—Status of Biological Diversity
—
produce particular characteristics and took decades to develop may be lost in a single year.
The rapid rate and large scale of agricultural
modernization imply that genetic diversity
losses are great, though quantitative estimates
have not been made.
Data for Decisionmaking
In recent decades, inventories and monitoring of ecosystems, species, and genetic types
have improved, and the knowledge of what exists has greatly enhanced abilities to maintain
diversity. Biologists, resource managers, and
conservationists concur that information available now is adequate in virtually every country to guide programs to maintain diversity.
The circumstantial case for diversity loss in
the United States and other industrial countries
is bolstered by abundant site-specific data as
well as by regional survey data on ecosystems
and species. This information has moved pub-
lic and private organizations to allocate substantial resources to the establishment and management of nature reserves, abatement of
●
83
pollution, and other programs that sustain biological diversity. Opportunities to improve the
use of these data are discussed in chapter 5.
The situation is quite different in developing
countries. Circumstantial evidence of diversity
loss is compelling, and many countries have
designated parks and natural areas in recent
years. But the available data are not adequate
to support policy decisions to allocate enough
funds and other resources to maintain diversity. Both money and trained personnel are
needed to develop the necessary information.
Public and private funds that might be used
for conservation are extremely scarce. Therefore, a great need exists for good data and comprehensive planning, so that whatever funds
can be allocated will be used effectively. Organizations such as The Nature Conservancy and
the IUCN are working to develop the data and
local planning expertise needed to adequately
assess the status of biological diversity and
prospects for its conservation. More concerted
support from public institutions is needed, however, both in the United States and abroad.
CHAPTER 3 REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4,
5,
Adeniji, K. O., “Prospects and Plans for Data
Banks on Animal Genetic Resources, ” Animal
Genetic Resources Conservation by 44/1 (Rome:
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United
Nations, 1984). In: Fitzhugh, et al., 1985.
Anonymous, “Ivory-billed Woodpecker Found, ”
Bioscience 36(10):703, 1986.
Barton, K., “Wildlife on Bureau of Land Management Lands, ” Audubon Wildlife Report,
1985 (New York: National Audubon Society,
1985).
Bean, M. J., The Evolution of National Wildlife
Law (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1983).
Connor, E. F., and McCoy, E. D., “The Statistics
and Biology of the Species-Area Relationship, ”
American Naturalist 113:791-883, 1979.
6. Crawford, M., “Rhinos Pushed to the Brink for
Trinkets and Medicines,” Science 234:147, Oct.
10, 1986.
7. Crawford, R. D., “Assessment of Poultry Genetic
Resources,” Canadian Journal of Animal Science 64:235-251, 1984. In: Fitzhugh, et al., 1986.
8. Crosbv. M, R.. and Raven, P., “Diversitv and Dis-
tribution of Wild Plants, ” OTA commissioned
paper, 1985.
9, Crumpacker, D, W., “Status and Trends of Natural Ecosystems in the United States, ” OTA
commissioned paper, 1985.
10 Dahlberg, K.A. (cd.), New Directions for Agriculture and Agricultural Research: Neglected
Dimensions and Emerging Alternatit’es (Totowa,
NJ: Rowman & Allanheld, 1986].
11 Dasmann, R. F., Milton, J. P., and Freeman, P. H.,
Ecological Principles for Economic Development (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1973).
12. Davis, S., et al., Plants in Danger: What Do We
Know? (Gland, Switzerland: International
Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, forthcoming). In: Synge, 1985.
13. Ehrlich, P., and Ehrlich, A., Extinction (New
York: Ballantine, 1981).
14, Erwin, T, L,, “Tropical Forest Canopies: The
Last Biotic Frontier, ” Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America 29(1):14-19, 1983. In;
Myers, 1985.
15. Fitzhugh, H. A., Getz, W., and Baker, F. H., “Bio-
g4 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
logical Diversity: Status and Trends for Agricultural Domesticated Animals, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.
16. Flesness, N., “Status and Trends of Wild Animal Diversity, ” OTA commissioned paper,
1985.
17. Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, Report of the Fifth Session of
the FAO Panel of Experts on Forest Gene Resources (Rome: 1984).
18, Fosburgh, W., “The Striped Bass, ” Audubon
WiZdlife Report, 1985 (New York: National Audubon Society, 1985).
19. Franklin, J. F,, Chief Plant Ecologist, U.S. Forest Service, personal communication, May 26,
1986.
20. Gentry, A. H., “Endemism in Tropical Versus
Temperate Plant Communities,” Conservation
Biology, M,E. SOU16 and B.A. Wilcox (eds.) (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc., 1986).
21, Gill, V. G., and Dale, T,, Topsoil and Civilization
(Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press,
1974),
22. Grant, C, J., The Soils and Agriculture of Hong
Kong (Hong Kong: The Government Printer at
the Government Press, 1960),
23. Institute of Environmental Studies, Preassessmen t of Natural Resources Issues in Sudan,
University of Khartoum and the Program for International Development, Clark University,
Worcester, MA, 1983,
24, International Union for Conservation of Nature
and Natural Resources, A Preliminary Environmental Profile of the India/Pakistan Border
Lands in the Sind-Kutch Region, a report for the
World Bank prepared at the IUCN Conservation Monitoring Center, October 1983.
25, Klee, G.A. (cd,), World Systems of Traditional
Resource Management (New York: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., 1980),
26. Klopatek, J, M., et al., Land-Use Conflict With
Natural Vegetation in the United States, Publication No, 1333 (Oak Ridge, TN: U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
Environmental Services Division, 1979). In:
Crumpacker, 1985.
27. Lewin, R., “Damage to TropicaI Forests, or Why
Were There So Many Kinds of Animals?” Science 234:149-150, Oct. 10, 1986,
28. Mares, M. A., “Conservation in South America:
Problems, Consequences, and Solutions, ” Science 233:734-739, Aug. 15, 1986,
29, Maruska, E. J., Executive Director, Zoological
Society of Cincinnati, presentation to the House
Committee on Science and Technology, Sub-
committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture
Research, and Environment, Sept. 25, 1980.
30. Myers, N., “Causes of Loss of Biological Diversity,” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.
31. Myers, N. (cd.), GAIA: An Atlas for Planet Management (Garden City, NJ: Doubleday & Co.,
1984).
32. Myers, N., Conversion of Tropical Moist Forests
(Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1980).
33. Nabhan, G,, Assistant Director, Desert Botanical Garden, Phoenix, AZ, personal communication, May 16, 1986,
34. Namkoong, G., “Conservation of Biological
Diversity by In-Situ and Ex-Situ Methods,” OTA
commissioned paper, 1985,
35. National Research Council, Staff Report: Environmental Degradation in Mauritania, Board on
Science and Technology for International Development, Commission on International Relations,
National Research Council, National Academy
Press, Washington, DC, 1981.
36. Oldfield, M. L., The Value of Conserving Genetic
Resources (Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of the Interior, National Park Service, 1984).
37. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development, Report on the State of the Environment (Paris: 1985).
38. Peters, R. L., and Darling, J. D. S., “Greenhouse
Effect and Nature Reserves, ” Bioscience 35(1 1):
707-717, 1985.
39, Prescott-Allen, C., “Status and Trends of Agri-
cultural Crop Species, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.
40. Prescott-Allen, C., and Prescott-Allen, A., The
First Resources: Wild Species in the North
American Economy (New Haven, CT, and Lon-
don: Yale University Press, 1986).
41. Salam, R. V., CoastaZ Resources in Sri Lanka, India, and Pakistan: Description, Use, and Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Inter-
national Affairs Office, Washington, DC, 1981.
42. Saunier, R, E., and Meganck, R, A., “Compatibility of Development and the In-situ Maintenance of Biotic Diversity in Developing Countries,” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.
43. Simberloff, D,, “Are We On the Verge of a Mass
Extinction in Tropical Rain Forests?” Dynamics
of Extinction, D.K. Elliot (cd,) (New York: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1986).
44, Simberloff, D., “Community Effects of Introduced Species,” Biotic Crises in Ecological and
Evolutionary Time, M.H. Nitecki (cd.) (New
York: Academic Press, 1981).
45, Smith, F. E., “A Short Review of the Status of
—.
Riparian Forests in California, ” Proceedings:
Riparian Forests in California—Their Ecologuy
and Conservation S3~mposium, A. Sands (cd.),
University of California, Davis, Division of Agricultural Sciences, May 14, 1977 (Berkeley, CA:
1980). In: Crumpacker, 1985.
46. Smift, B. L., and Barclay, J. S., “Status of Riparian Ecosystems in the United States, ” presented
at 1980 American Water Resources Association
~National Conference, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Eastern Energy and Land Use Team,
1980.
47. Synge, H., “Status and Trends of Wild Plants, ”
OTA commissioned paper, 1985.
48. Tiner, R. W., ]r., Wetlands of the United States:
Current Status and Recent Trends (Newton Corner, MA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Habitat Resources, 1984). In: Crumpacker 1985.
49 U.S. Agency for International Development,
Honduras Countr~~ Environmental Profile: A
Field Study, AID Contract No. AID/SOD/PDC-
C-O247 (Arlington, VA: JRB Associates, August
1982).
50. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Technologies To Sustain Tropical Forest
Resources, OTA-F-214 (Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1984).
S1. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-
Ch. 3—Status of Biologica/ Diversity
●
85
ment, Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland
and Rangeland Productivity, PB 83-125 013
(Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, 1982).
52. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Recovery Plan for the Endangered
and Threatened Species of the California Channel Islands (Portland, OR: 1984).
53. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The
Chesapeake Ba~~ Program: Findings and Recommendations, September 1983. In: Fosburgh,
1985.
54. Warner, R,E. [recorder), Proceedings; Fish and
Wildlife Resource Needs in Riparian Ecosystems Workshop, Harpers Ferry, WV, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Eastern Energy and Land
Use Team, Resources Analysis Group, May 3031, 1979. In: Crumpacker 1985,
55. Wildlife Trade Monitoring Unit, A Perception
of the Issue of High-Trade Volume (Cambridge,
UK: Conservation Monitoring Centre, 1984).
56. World Bank, Sudan Forestry Sector Ret’iew, Report No. 5911-SU, 1986.
57. World Resources Institute and International
Institute for Environment and Development,
World Resources 1986 (New York: Basic Bo~ks,
1986),
Chapter 4
Interventions To Maintain
Biological Diversity
CONTENTS
Page
Highlightts . . .***, ,* **,**.**.**.***.****.***.**,*."*****...*.,**,**** 89
Management Systems To Conserve Diversity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .....89
Onsite Ecosystem Maintenance e * * * * * . . . , * * * * * * * . * * , * , , . , . * . , . * , , * , , 89
OnSite Species Maintenance **. ,****** **. ,.. **** **. **** *,*, ,* *m.**. 90
Offsite Maintenance in Living Collections. . ..*. @**? OOo. .o. ***. ***, e..* 90
Offsite Maintenance in Germplasm Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .....91
Deciding Which Management System To Apply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...91
Complementariness of Management Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......92
Biological Linkages **0. .*. * * * 0 * . . * * * * * * * * . * * * * * * * * * * * * . * * .**.**.** 92
Technological Linkages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..94
Institutional Linkages *.*, .**. **** *.** ***, **** .**. b*******..**..*.* 94
Chapter 4 References .*. ,.. **** ***. ***. *****v********.*****.,**.**.. 96
●
●
●
●
●
Tables
Table NO.
Page
4-1. Management Systems To Maintain Biological Diversity ., . . . . . . ... , , . 90
42. Management Systems and Conservation Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Figure
Figure No.
Page
4-I. Transfers of Biotic Material Between Management Systems . . . . . . . . . . 93
Chapter 4
Interventions To Maintain
Biological Diversity
HIGHLIGHTS
●
●
✼
●
Four management systems are used to conserve diversity: 1) managing ecosystems, 2) managing populations and species in natural or seminatural habitats,
3) maintaining and propagating living organisms offsite as in zoos or botanic
gardens, and 4) storing seeds or other germplasm, usually with refrigeration
or freezing.
The four systems for maintaining diversity are complementary, but linkages
between the strategies (e.g., between zoos and nature reserves) are less well
developed than they could be to maximize conservation efforts.
Biological, political, and socioeconomic factors must be evaluated to choose
the best mix of management interventions. Because the importance of maintaining diversity has only recently begun to attract widespread recognition,
scientific methods for evaluating trade-offs are at an early stage of development. Methods for evaluating socioeconomic factors seem to la~ behind development of biological methods.
The majority of plants, animals, and microbes
survive without any specific human interventions to maintain them, However, as natural
areas continue to be modified—through fragmentation of habitats, for example—their survival
and, in turn, maintaining biological diversity
will increasingly depend on active management. A spectrum of technologies—broadly defined to include management systems and other
means by which knowledge is applied—can be
used to maintain diversity,
Two general approaches are followed in
maintaining diversity: 1) onsite maintenance,
which conserves the organism in its natural setting; and 2) offsite maintenance, which conserves it outside its natural setting, Onsite maintenance can focus either on an entire ecosystem
or on a particular species or population. And
offsite maintenance can focus on living collections or on stored germplasm. These four broad
management systems are necessary components
of an overall strategy to conserve diversity, Conservation objectives can be enhanced by any
combination of the four systems and by im-
proving the linkages between them to take advantage of their potential complementariness.
Table 4-1 lists some technology programs
associated with each management system. [n
general, the technologies on the right side of
the table entail more human intervention,
Onsite Ecosystem Maintenance
Where the conservation objective is to maintain as much biological diversity as possible,
the only practical and cost-effective approach
89
90 “ Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
Table 4“1 .—Examples of Management Systems To Maintain Biological Diversity
Off site
Onsite
Ecosystem maintenance
Species management
Living collections
Germplasm storage
National parks
Agroecosystems
Zoological parks
Seed and pollen banks
Research natural areas
Wildlife refuges
Botanic gardens
Semen, ova, and embryo banks
Marine sanctuaries
/n-situ genebanks
Field collections
Microbial culture collections
Resource development
planning
Game parks and reserves
Captive breeding programs
Tissue culture collections
Increasing human intervention
Increasing natural processes
-
*
SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, 1986
is to maintain ecosystem diversity. Offsite maintenance cannot accomplish this objective because many species cannot live outside their
natural habitats, An ecosystem approach allows
processes, such as natural selection, to continue. Survival, for some species, depends on
complex interactions with other species in their
habitats. Maintaining diverse ecosystems also
continues ecological processes, such as nutrient cycling, that typically depend on the interaction of numerous species (5).
programs to maintain a diversity of ecosystems usually identify different ecosystem types
and then attempt to preserve a sample of each
type (see ch. 5). Some types, such as cloud
forests, are rare and confined to small areas.
These are especially vulnerable and receive special emphasis in some conservation programs.
The ecosystem approach is used not only for
natural areas but also for traditional agricultural ecosystems, Pressures to modernize these
“agroecosystems” threaten the characteristically high levels of crop and livestock genetic
diversity these systems represent—and upon
which modern agricultural systems continue
to depend.
Onsite Species Maintenance
When the objective is to maximize direct benefits from diversity, such as production of an
optimal mixture of game, fish, timber, and scenic values, then the preferred approach is often
to manage particular species and their habitats.
Managing at the population level is preferred
when the objective is to avert extinction of a
rare or threatened species or subspecies.
Because managing all species would be impossible, biological, political, and economic factors determine which species will receive direct attention. Preference is given to species
with recognized economic value, for example.
Noncommercial species that are rare and endangered also are given management attention
to ensure survival of wild populations. Similarly, species that provide important indirect
benefits, such as pollination or pest control,
may receive attention. Ideally, management
should also focus on keystone species, i.e., those
with important ecosystem support or regulatory functions.
Offsite Maintenance in
Living Collections
Zoological parks, botanic gardens, arboretums, and field collections are common homes
for living collections. Living collections serve
several conservation objectives, Zoos and botanic gardens can propagate species threatened
with extinction in the wild, sometimes enabling the repopulation of a newly protected or
restored habitat. Arboretums and living collections kept at places like agricultural research
stations maintain the genetic diversity of plants
not amenable for germplasm storage as well
as numerous livestock varieties that are not
commercial y popular but are culturally significant or are needed for research and breeding
programs.
The number of species maintained in living
collections is limited by the size of the facilities and the relatively high maintenance cost
Ch. 4—interventions To Maintain Biological Diversity
per species. Managers of offsite collections face
the dilemma of maintaining populations large
enough to ensure viability and at the same time
providing refuge to as many species as possible.
Historically, the primary objectives of living
collections have been research and display,
However, growing concern over the loss of biological diversity is leading to greater efforts to
develop collections for their conservation potential. Offsite facilities are also used to breed
and propagate organisms, so they no longer rely
solely on collecting from the wild to replenish
their stocks. Instead, they can make a positive,
direct contribution to species’ survival.
Offsite Maintenance in
Germplasm Storage
91
cost-effective method to preserve the genetic
diversity of the thousands of agricultural varieties and their wild relatives when biological
factors allow (5). As farmers increasingly abandon the traditional varieties in favor of genetically uniform, modern ones, the preservation
of diverse, locally adapted crops will depend
heavily on offsite storage (l).
The need to maintain a convenient source
of germplasm for breeding purposes and the
ability to draw on germplasm from different
geographic areas are important objectives met
by the offsite storage systems (see ch. 7). Germplasm storage is also the principal method for
maintaining identified strains of microbes (see
ch. 8), And it is increasingly used to store wild
plant species and a few wild animal species.
Storage of dormant seeds, embryos, and clonal
materials, or germplasm storage, is the most
The efficacy of onsite and offsite technologies
depends on biological, political, and economic
factors. The following four chapters in this report examine how these various considerations
determine which technologies are applied. General observations on how these factors help
match management systems to conservation objectives are considered here. (See table 4-2 for
a summary of objectives, )
Biological considerations are central to the
objectives and choice of systems. Because not
all diversity is threatened, the task of maintaining it can focus on the elements that need special attention, Biological uniqueness is important in setting priorities for conservation
programs. A unique species—one that is the
only representative of an entire genus or family, for example, or a species with high esthetic
appeal—may be the focus of intensive conservation management either onsite, offsite, o r
both.
Biological uniqueness can present problems
in applying conservation technologies, because
species-specific research is often required t o
develop management or recovery plans (ch, 5).
Species with unique reproductive physiology,
for example, often cannot be maintained offsite until a considerable investment has been
made in developing propagation techniques (ch.
6).
Political factors also influence conservation
objectives and management systems. Commitments of government resources, policies, and
programs determine the focus of attention and,
to a large extent, such commitments reflect public interests and support. For example, in the
United States a disproportionate share of resources is devoted to conservation programs
for a select few of the many endangered species. Substantial sums have been spent in llthhour efforts to save the California condor and
the black-footed ferret, while other endangered
organisms such as invertebrate species receive
little notice.
National instability may also threaten biological resources either directly in the cases of civil
strife or warfare or indirectly through encouraging neglect. Such cases warrant special efforts
92 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
Table 4-2.—Management Systems and Conservation Objectives
Off site
Onsite
Ecosystem maintenance
Maintain:
a reservoir or “1 i brary ” of
genetic resources
●
●
●
●
●
evolutionary
potential
functioning of various
ecological processes
vast majority of known
and unknown species
representatives of unique
natural ecosystems
Species maintenance
Maintain:
. genetic interaction between semidomesticated
species and wild relatives
s wi Id populations for sustainable exploitation
Q
●
●
viable populations of
threatened species
species that provide im portant indirect benefits
(for pollination or pest
control)
“keystone” species with
important ecosystem support or regulating function
Germplasm storage
Living collections
Maintain:
breeding material that cannot be stored in
genebanks
field research and development on new varieties and
breeds
off site cultivation and
propagation
●
●
●
●
●
captive breeding stock of
populations threatened in
the wild
ready access to wild species for research, education. and disr.)lav
, .
Maintain:
convenient source of
germplasm for breeding
programs
col Iections of germ plasm
from uncertain or threatened sources
reference or type col Iections
as standard for research
and patenting purposes
●
●
●
●
●
access to germ plasm from
wide geographic areas
genetic materials from critically endangered species
SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1986
to collect an endangered species or germplasm
and maintain it outside the country to ensure
survival and to facilitate access.
The applicable management systems and
technologies also depend largely on economic
factors. Costs of alternative management systems and the value of resources to be conserved
may be relatively clear in the case of genetic
diversity. For example, the benefits of breeding programs compared with the cost of seed
maintenance easily justify germplasm storage
technologies (see ch. 7). However, cost-benefit
analysis is more difficult when benefits are diffuse and accrue over a long period (7), This
problem is particularly acute for onsite maintenance programs where competition for land
exists. Current threats to biologically rich tropical forests by land seeking peasant agriculturalists illustrate these conflicting interests,
COMPLEMENTARYNES$ OF MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Each of the four management systems serves
different objectives. Historically, the two offsite approaches have developed independently
from onsite approaches, However, some links
have developed between the different management programs (see figure 4-1). Improvement
of such links will contribute substantially to the
cost-effectiveness of each management system
and will help to achieve the overall goal of maintaining biological diversity.
Biological Linkages
Transfers of biotic material among the four
management systems can enhance diversity.
Exchanges between onsite systems occur, for
example, when genetic material from wild
plants becomes incorporated into locally cultivated varieties. Exchanges between offsite systems occur, for example, when seeds and clones
of agricultural varieties are taken from storage
and grown out in living collections for use in
breeding programs. Similarly, a zoo may collect animal semen from its living collection and
place it in cryogenic storage to expand the number of individuals it can maintain—in a sense
creating a “frozen zoo. ”
Exchanges of species or germplasm between
wild areas and living collections are most evident when wild specimens are taken for zoos,
—
Ch. 4—Interventions To Maintain Biological Diversity . 93
Figure 4-1 .—Transfers of Biotic Material Between Management Systems
\
)
SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1986
botanic gardens, or private collections. Taking
wild specimens for living collections may provide material for research and public education,
may prevent captive populations from inbreeding, and may even enhance wild populations
through later reintroduction. However, these
activities can—and have—threatened wild populations of a number of species.
It is often possible to take only germplasm—
seeds, cuttings, and semen—rather tha n entire
organisms. This approach has the advantage
of being less destructive to rare or endangered
populations (6), In the interest of preserving endangered populations, mammal germplasm collection is increasingly being attempted. Semen
has been collected from wild populations of
94 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
cheetahs, rhinoceroses, and elephants (10), But
collecting mammal germplasm, without keeping the animal in captivity, is more difficult and
costly, And many of the wildlife specimens
maintained in zoos are the survivors of destructive capturing procedures.
Efforts increasingly are being made through
captive breeding to produce stocks for reintroduction into the wild. The golden lion tamarin program in Brazil (11) has been successful
for example, Less attention has been focused
on reintroducing threatened plant species, but
the recent reintroduction of a wild olive tree
species on the island of St. Helena suggests that
this approach is possible (6).
Perhaps the most important transfer of genetic material occurs between agroecosystems
and germplasm storage: Landraces produced
in traditional farmers’ fields are the result of
thousands of years of natural and human selection from thousands of different crop varieties.
Many varieties can no longer be maintained
by the farmers, who abandon them to plant
higher yielding crop varieties. But the genetic
diversity of traditional varieties is needed to
create improved varieties. Thus, collecting expeditions to transfer these varieties into offsite
storage are critically important to maintenance
of the world’s agriculture, Germplasm flows
from storage back to agroecosystems, via research and breeding programs, as new varieties
are introduced into agricultural systems.
Transfers are not always beneficial, however.
Livestock that escape captivity can become feral
animals with populations so high that they
threaten native wild plants and animals. Feral
goats on Pacific islands and feral horses on
some rangelands of the United States are wellknown examples. Similarly, exotic plants introduced as ornamental or agricultural crops
sometimes escape to become weeds that crowd
out native species. Efforts to capture specimens
for living collections can also be destructive,
The challenge is to manage the transfers among
sites and programs to enhance the positive contributions to diversity maintenance and minimize the negatives ones,
Technological Linkages
Research and technology transfers between
diversity management programs can increase
the efficiency, effectiveness, and capacity for
maintaining biological diversity. Some technologies developed for domesticated species can
be adapted for use with wild species. For example, technologies for offsite maintenance of
wild species—particularly germplasm storage
and captive breeding—have benefited substantially from the research and experience in agriculture. Perhaps the most dramatic linkage is
embryo transfer technologies developed for
livestock that are now being adapted to endangered species (ch, 6). Similarly, storage technologies developed for agricultural varieties,
such as cryogenics and tissue culture, may become valuable tools for maintaining collections
of rare or threatened wild plant species.
Like biological linkages, technological linkages work both ways. For example, research
on living collections has provided information
that can be applied to maintaining populations
in the wild (2). Likewise, research on wild populations supplied information on a number of
species’ special reproduction requirements,
which led to successful results with breeding
in captivity.
Technological linkages among institutions
engaged in researching, developing, and applying technologies have been limited. Researchers and resource managers in this area have
historically worked in relative isolation, dealing almost exclusively with others in their fields
of activity. The few interactions that have
occurred have had a positive impact. Thus, the
potential for benefits from increased cooperative work seems apparent, but institutions are
slow to make such changes.
Institiutional Linkages
Exchanges of organisms and technologies
have occurred because they have been considered necessary for success of the different programs. However, most programs focus on relatively narrow subsets of diversity. Some groups
—
Ch. 4—Interventions To Maintain Biological Diversity . 95
devote their attention exclusively to maintaining certain agricultural crops, while others focus on specific wild species—e. g,, whales or
migratory waterfowl, The result is that much
of the work is done in isolation, and the scope
and effectiveness of overall diversity maintenance effort becomes difficult to monitor. And
while particular concerns may be well-addressed,
other concerns receive little or no attention.
Institutional problems that impede overall
maintenance of biological diversity include:
overlap and inter institutional or intrainstitutional competition,
c gaps between goals and the human and
financial resources available to achieve
them, and
● lack of complementariness or cooperation
between initiatives (4).
●
Institutional links can identify common interests, strengths, and weaknesses of various
organizations as well as gaps and opportunities to address overall concerns. Not all activities should be operationally linked, however.
A diversity of approaches in conservation activities is beneficial, and interaction should occur principally with those programs closest in
purpose and approach (4).
research to applied research is a problem in
developing useful technologies, the principal
weakness seems to be the failure of institutions
to support synthesis of scientific information
into useful management tools.
The problem of technology development is
more pronounced for onsite than for offsite
maintenance. This difference perhaps reflects
the more pragmatic nature of offsite maintenance, where institutions (most with agricultural interests) emphasize research and development. Focus on technology development is
commonly lacking in onsite maintenance. Institutions may deter scientists from translating
research into practical techniques (8). To apply ecological studies to onsite maintenance,
greater emphasis needs to be placed on comparative and predictive science, which implies
less emphasis on descriptive studies (4).
Forces working against diversity are largely
social and economic. Therefore, human dimensions need to be included in the scientific investigations, and natural and social sciences
must be involved in conservation initiatives.
There is, however, a paucity of social science
research for the development of technologies
to conserve biological diversity. This lack is
partly because of the complexity and difficulty
of such work, and partly because the potential
for social science to make important contributions has been overbooked.
Useful technologies emerge through a series
of steps, Basic research provides an understanding of the nature of biological systems.
Drawing on this knowledge, researchers define
requirements and develop techniques to manage ecosystems, species, or genetic resources,
Once the techniques are developed, however,
researchers must synthesize techniques into
technologies, then transfer and apply the technologies to site-specific circumstances.
Greater support is needed for inventory and
monitoring of diversity in natural systems and
in agricultural systems. Some of this information is already available, but most of it has not
been assimilated or made available to decisionmakers,
In practice, the process of technology development is impeded by institutional constraints.
Research is undertaken by scientists in many
institutions, including universities, botanic
gardens, zoological institutions, and government agencies responsible for natural resources. These scientists commonly emphasize
the theoretical. At the other end of the spectrum are resource managers who apply particular techniques. Although the transfer of basic
Finally, science needs to be applied to provide policy makers and the general public with
better information on the scope and ramifications of diversity loss. Such information needs
to be accurate, compelling, and digestible by
a lay audience, To produce such information,
scientists and scientific institutions need to become more directly involved and accommodating within the public policymaking process (9).
At the same time, the information they provide
96 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
should meet the four criteria for effective public policy:
1. Adequacy—meets the accepted standards
of objectivity, completeness, reproducibility, and accuracy, and is appropriate to the
subject and the application.
2. Value—addresses a worthwhile problem;
neither too narrow nor too broad.
3. Effectiveness—able to influence policy in
a constructive way and linked with the network of decisionmakers responsible for the
issue,
4. Legitimacy—carries a widely-accepted presumption of correctness and authority (3),
CHAPTER 4 REFERENCES
1. Arnold, M. H., “Plant Gene Conservation,” Nature 39:615, Feb. 20, 1986.
2. Benvischke, K., “The Impact of Research on the
Propagation of Endangered Species in Zoos. ”
Genetics and Conservation, C. Schonewald-Cox,
et al. (eds. ) (Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co., Inc., 1983).
3. Clark, W. C., and Majone, G., “The Critical Appraisal of Scientific Inquiries With Policy Implacations, ” Science, Technology, and Human
Values, forthcoming.
4. diCastri, F,, “Twenty Years of International
Programmed on Ecosystems and the Biosphere:
An Overview of Achievements, Shortcomings,
and Possible New Perspectives, ”Global Change,
T.F, Malone and J.G. Roederer (eds.) (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1985).
5. Frankel, O. H., and Soul&, M. E., Conservation
and Evolution (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge
University Press, 1981).
6. Lucas, G., and Oldfield, S., “The Role of Zoos,
7,
8.
9,
10,
11.
Botanical Gardens and Similar Institutions in
the Maintenance of Biological Diversity,” OTA
commissioned paper, 1985.
Randall, A., “Human Preferences, Economics,
and the Preservation of Species, ” The Value of
Z3ioZogical Diversity, B.G. Norton (cd.) (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986).
Salwasser, H., U.S. Forest Service, personal
communication, September 1986.
Shapiro, H. T., et al., “A National Research Strategy, ” Issues in Science and Technology, spring
1986, pp. 116-125.
Wildt, D. E,, National Zoological Park, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, personal communication, July 1986.
World Wildlife Fund—U.S., Annual Report 1984
(Washington, DC: 1984),
Part II
Chapter s
Maintaining Biological
Diversity Onsite
CONTENTS
Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Classifying and Designing Protected Areas.. . . . . . . .
Classification Systems for Protected Areas . . . . . . .
Design of Protected Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Establishment of Protected Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acquisition and Designation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Criteria for Selection of Areas To Protect . . . . . . . .
Planning and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Planning Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Management Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ecosystem Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Outside Protected Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Genetic Resources for Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conservational A Type of Development . . . . . . . .
Data for Onsite Maintenance of Biological Diversity
Uneven Quality of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Databases ..*.*** *..*.,. *.***** .******* . . . . .
Data for Management of Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Coordination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Social and Economic Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Needs and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
An Ecosystem Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Innovative Technologies for Developing Countries
Long-Term Multidisciplinary Research . . . . . . . . . .
Personnel Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Data To Facilitate Onsite Protection. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chapter preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
●
●
●
Page
. * * * . . . . . * . * . . . * . * * 101
. * * , . . *,*.,* * * . * * 101
...***, ...*..,. . . . . . 102
. . . . . . ,...0.. .*..**, 102
. . * * * . . . . . . . * . . . * * . 105
. * . . * . . * . . * . * . * * . . 109
. * * , . . * . , . . . 6 . . . s , . , 109
*,**... . . . ****** ** 111
. . . . . . ,*****, .*.** 113
..0,., .*.* , ........113
. . . . . . . . . . . . . ,,.,.,. 116
.*.*,*. .*,.**.* . . . . . 119
. . . . 0 , , . . . , * . . . . 0 . , 121
. . . * * . . . , , * * * , . . . . . s 121
.122
:::::::::::::::: :::.123
. ...................123
.***..* . . . . . . . . .**.. 124
. .............124
: : : : : : . . . . . . . . . .. ...126
..,.,.s .**.,*** ..00s 127
. . 0 . . 0 . . * * . * , . . 0 . 0 . 128
..8.,.. * . * . * * . . . * * * 128
....129
::::::::::::::: :., ..129
*.**.. **...*** * * * * 130
******** ******O* 4* 130
,. .. .. .. .. ... ,., ...’131
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Tables
Page
5-1. Categories and Management Objectives of Protected Areas . ..........110
5-2. Coverageof Protected Areas by Biogeographic Provinces . ...........112
Table No.
Page
5-1. Growth of the Global Network of Protected Areas, 1890-1985 . ........110
5-2, National Conservation Strategy Development Around the World,
July 1985 .....0 . . . . . ,.*”.* . . . . . . . . .0,,.... *O..... *.***.. * O * 116
5-3. Design of a Coastal or Marine Protected Area . .....................119
5-4. Representation of a Geographic InformationSystem Function
Overlaying Several Types of Enviromnental Data . ..................126
Figure No.
●
●
●
●
Boxes
Page
5-A. Differences Between Terrestrial and CoastaLMarine Systems . . . . . . . . .I05
107
5-IL The Edge Effect * * * * * * . * . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * . * * , * . * * * * * * *
5-C. Cluster Concept for Biosphere Reserves .***.** ..*.**.* .*,***** . . * 118
BOXN O.
●
☛ ☛ ☛ ☛ ☛ ☛ ☛
●
●
S * *
Chapter 5
Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite
Maintaining plant, animal, and microbial diversity in their natural environment (onsite) is the most effective way to conserve maximum biological diversity over the long term.
● Strategies to maintain diversity onsite have evolved from strict preservation
to multiple use. More recently, attention is being given to integrating conservation with development in areas outside protected zones.
● Guidelines for optimum biological design of protected areas are improving.
But decisions on design are determined more often by socioeconomic and political factors than by scientific principles.
● Techniques for restoring diversity on degraded sites are being improved as
knowledge of natural plant and animal succession increases. However, complete restoration is often not feasible, and partial restoration is usually slow
and expensive.
● Opportunities for improving national and global conservation of diversity onsite
include 1) promoting an ecosystem approach to protected area establishment
and management, 2) encouraging innovative resource development methods
that treat conservation as a form of development, 3) supporting multidisciplinary research on the many factors to consider when designing nature reserves,
and 4) developing training and job opportunities for experts in all these areas.
INTRODUCTION
Plants and animals can be maintained where
they are found, that is, onsite, either by protecting certain sites from change or by managing change to support some portion of the natural biota. Most biological diversity can only
be maintained in a natural condition for three
reasons:
1. For most species, technologies have not
been developed to keep substantial numbers of individuals alive outside their nat-
ural environments.
2. For species that can be kept alive in artificial conditions, preserving genetic diversity usually entails maintaining numerous
individuals from genetically distinct populations. Such preservation is financially
and logistically feasible for only a few of
the hundreds or thousands of species of
many ecosystems.
3. Species survive gradual changes in their
natural environments by continuous evolution and adaptation—processes that are
arrested in offsite collections.
Strategies for maintaining biological diversity onsite range from single-species management to protection of complete ecosystems in
designated natural areas. The various approaches are complementary. For example, a
European nature reserve system established
with broad conservation objectives contains
some 10,000 sites of plant species that also are
useful for breeding and for research into the
chemistry of natural substances.
101
102 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
CLASSIFYING AND DESIGNING PROTECTED AREAS
Maintenance of biological diversity per se has
often not been the primary objective of protected natural areas, Instead, many such areas
have been set aside and managed for other conservation values, such as preservation of scenic
landscapes or protection of watersheds (11).
More recently, however, the U.S. Congress and
other policy makers have begun to authorize actions to address the maintenance of biological
diversity directly. With this new mandate, biologists, agricultural scientists, and conservation
program managers have started to develop new
ways to apply science to the problem of maintaining biological diversity onsite.
The development of techniques for onsite
maintenance of biological diversity has so far
focused mainly on protected areas. This section is concerned, therefore, largely with where
these protected areas should be established and
how biological principles can be used in the
design and management of protected areas. The
technologies appear to be scientifically sound,
yet too little implementation has occurred thus
far for a conclusive assessment of effect.
Even if the biological techniques are demonstrated to be correct, the actual location, design, and management objectives for protected
areas will be determined mainly by social (including economic and political) factors. For example, costs will usually be a stronger consideration than biological criteria in choosing
whether to have one large reserve or several
small ones, Boundaries usually reflect what
area has been made available rather than what
would provide the best habitat for flora and
fauna,
Development activities other than conservation may also take precedence in decisions to
change the boundaries of protected areas. In
tropical countries, where diversity is most
threatened, many natural areas are occupied
by farmers, hunters, gatherers, and fishermen
(see ch. 11). Strategies to safeguard biological
diversity must recognize that development of
natural resources is imperative and must incorporate socioeconomic and political considera-
tions. However, conservationists and resource
developers should also view conservation as
a necessary component of economic development.
In spite of the powerful influence of social
factors, social sciences are applied less often
than natural sciences in efforts to maintain biological diversity. Development planning techniques that do use social science data and principles have been proposed, however, and used
occasionally to integrate natural resource conservation with other forms of economic, cultural, and social development. Resource development planning is discussed in some detail
in the OTA report, Technologies To Sustain
Tropical Forest Resources (83), A variation of
resource development planning, integrated development planning, is described briefly later
in this chapter.
Classification Systems for
Protected Areas
Strategies to develop a system of protected
areas typically begin by classifying and mapping types of ecosystems using data on plant
and animal distributions and on climate and
soil parameters. This information is compared
with the locations of already-protected areas
to approximate priorities for allocating the resources available for site protection,
Descriptions of threatened ecosystems are
now adequate in every country to undertake
effective programs for conserving biological
diversity. In nearly all regions, however, continued improvements in ecosystem classification and assessment would facilitate better decisions on where protection is most needed.
Preservation priorities need to be based on
knowledge of which ecosystems:
have high diversity,
have high endemism (a high proportion of
the species having a limited natural range),
are threatened by resource development
or degradation patterns,
Ch. 5—Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite
are located where social and economic
conditions are conducive to conservation,
and
● are not adequately represented in existing
protected areas.
●
The major patterns of nature can be described
for most terrestrial areas with existing data. Several biogeographic systems have been developed that relate data on distribution of plant
and animal species to factors such as climate
and natural barriers like oceans, deserts, and
mountain ranges. These systems classify the
Earth into zones, with each zone containing
distinctive ecosystems and life forms.
Much less information is available on aquatic
sites, such as lakes and streams, Aquatic ecosystems are difficult to map on a large scale,
and the way to integrate them into land classifications is poorly understood. The same is
true of riparian vegetation, mountain meadows,
and other azonal ecosystems,
Classification systems take two broad approaches. “Taxonomic” methods establish land
units by grouping resources or sites with similar properties. “Regionalization” methods subdivide land into natural units on the basis of
spatial patterns that affect natural processes
and the use of resources (1), The two approaches
can be integrated to identify ecosystem diversity in considerable detail.
The taxonomic approach is typified by the
Society of American Foresters (SAF) Cover
Type Classification system, which aggregates
similar stands of forest trees on the basis of the
kind, number, and distribution of plant species
and the dominance by tree species (19). The
basic taxonomic units—forest cover types—are
named after the predominant tree species. The
Renewable Resources Evaluation of the U.S.
Forest Service further aggregates many of the
SAF categories into 20 “major forest types, ”
which are the basis for the only map of forest
cover types available for the United States as
a whole.
The regionalization approach, on the other
hand, begins with a nation or continent and
subdivides it into progressively smaller, more
●
103
closely related units. An example of this is the
ecoregions classification system, used extensively by U.S. Federal land-managing agencies
(l). Ecosystem regions for North America are
defined as domains on the basis of climate. The
domains are subdivided into divisions, which
are subdivided into provinces on the basis of
what plant communities can be expected to develop if the natural succession of species is not
interrupted by human activity. Provinces are
subdivided into sections on the basis of the composition of the vegetation types that eventually
would prevail. Extending this ecoregion classification system to cover the world on a scale
of 1:25 million is being considered.
A recently developed system for classification of the world’s marine and coastal environments combines physical processes with biotic
characteristics (34). This classification system
will be used as a basis for selecting U.S. coastal
biosphere reserves (13),
Each classification system has advantages
and disadvantages for programs to maintain
biological diversity. The taxonomic approach
identifies and classifies each component, For
example, separate taxonomies are used to identify flora, fauna, and soils. This separation
facilitates location of natural areas that will
conserve concentrations of high-priority components, such as a vegetation type or animal
species. The regionalization approach allows
scientists to determine whether the same type
of ecosystem in distinct biogeographic regions
actually represents two different ecosystems (2),
Biogeographic classification maps indicate
what ecosystems would be found under natural conditions, but the discrepancy between expected and actual features is often great because
of human intervention, Sparse grasslands may
occur where climate, physical features, and species distribution records suggest tropical moist
forest should grow, Furthermore, the major
classification systems cover only broad zonal
features of the environment. Azonal features—
e.g., wetlands, riparian areas, and coral reefs—
cannot be included. So conservation strategies
must take a different approach to identify priorities for these ecosystems. Typically, plans
104 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
credit’
Forest
The Society of American Foresters Cover Type Map, an example of an ecosystem classification system, aggregates
similar stands of forest trees on the basis of the kind, number, and distribution of plant species
and the dominance by tree species.
for conservation of azonal ecosystems are based
on surveys that cut across the biogeographic
zones.
Biogeographic classification systems also
need to be supplemented with information on
endemism. Patterns of endemism vary among
taxa and among regions. Some species with restricted distribution are quite common locally,
whereas others are extremely rare (26). On the
broadest scale, taxa may be endemic to a continent or subcontinent; on a narrow scale, many
plant species seem to be restricted naturally to
areas as small as a few square kilometers.
Identifying centers of endemism has been an
ongoing effort of conservationists, especially
tropical ecologists. An area such as an island
or a mountain forest may not have an unusually
high number of species present, but it may have
a high proportion of species not found elsewhere (i.e., high endemism). Such areas are considered valuable for maintaining biological
diversity, because they contribute substantially
to diversity on a global scaIe,
In sum, a variety of ecosystem classification
systems are currently being used by many organizations with different objectives. Although
these maps do not indicate the extent of existing ecosystems (e. g., how much forest actually
remains), they do correspond roughly to the
boundaries of species distributions. Thus, they
can be compared with maps of natural areas
already protected, and planners can then choose
which sites to focus on for more detailed assess-
Ch. 5—Maintaining Bio/ogical Diversity Onsite
ment of an ecosystem’s contribution to diversity, its vulnerability, and its social and economic significance.
Design of Protected Areas
The sizes and locations of protected areas are
determined first by political and financial constraints. Within those limits, the designs of nature reserves have usually been based on natural history characteristics of the particular
species of greatest interest. Recently, however,
scientists have begun to develop theories for
designing nature reserves to optimize protection of biological diversity rather than protection of particular species. These theories are
still based mainly on inferences from general
scientific principles and are largely untested,
Thus, they are the subject of much academic
debate among scientists (53),
Criteria for optimum size and shape for protected areas have been based on information
from insular ecology (e.g., refs, 15,16,74,90).
These criteria, however, are widely viewed as
too simplistic, and the theories are being further developed with information from ecological-evolutionary genetics (24,70,73,79) and
from theoretical population dynamics (28,74,
80). These theories focus mainly on terrestrial
protected areas and probably have limited use
for the design of coastal-marine reserves, The
great dispersive abilities of marine organisms
and the interconnections of adjacent communities thus complicate decisions concerning the
proper size and spacing of reserves. (See box
5-A for discussion contrasting terrestrial and
coastal-marine systems,)
Information on the occurrence and natural
distribution of species on islands has been used
to formulate theoretical size and location criteria for protected areas intended to maintain
diversity. The equilibrium theory of island biogeography (52) maintains that greater numbers
of species are found on larger islands because
105
Box 5-A.—Differences Between
Terrestrial and Coastal~Marine Systems
It is difficult to gauge the relative differences
in biological diversity in terrestrial and
coastal-marine environments. Dry land contains approximately four times the number of
species found in the sea; on that consideration alone, terrestrial ecosystems seem inherently more diverse. Differences in faunal
diversity between marine and terrestrial environments are primarily due to insects. Without them, marine fauna would be more diverse
than terrestrial fauna. However, terrestrial
flora clearly exhibit greater diversity than marine flora (51).
Viewed from a different perspective, in
which the number of higher taxa (particularly
animal) indicate degree of diversity, the sea
would appear more diverse because many
higher taxa (i.e., phyla, classes, orders) are exclusively marine. Implicit in this view is the
notion that higher levels reflect greater genetic
differences–i.e., a single species maybe the
sole representative of an order, class, or phylum, and the loss of one of these species might
cause afar greater genetic loss than would the
loss of a species in a taxon made up of several
hundred or thousand members (51).
Another difference is that many fish and invertebrates that make up the bulk of marine
species pass through several life stages from
egg to adult. In many of the life stages, the
organisms seem unrelated to that of the adult
form. These different forms can live in different ecosystems or in distinctly different niches
within the same ecosystem. Maintaining one
species may therefore require maintenance of
several different ecosystems (51).
Movement of organisms and materials between different community types—seagrass,
coral reef, and mangrove—means that terrestrial and marine communities sometimes cannot be defined simply by their physical boundaries. Effectiveness of efforts to protect one
community type may be diminished by failure to protect neighboring communities as
well as adjacent watersheds (40).
106 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
the populations on smaller islands are more vulnerable to extinction. That vulnerability is due
to probabilistic nature of individual births,
deaths, occurrences of disease, and changes in
habitats. Also, islands farther from continents
have fewer species, because colonists from
large land masses are less likely to reach them.
This theory was extended from true islands to
their terrestrial analogs (e.g., forest patches in
agricultural or suburban areas), and the field
of study become known as “insular ecology”
to reflect this broader perspective. Scientists
do not concur that the theory accurately explains natural patterns of species diversity, and
research has been initiated to test the theory.
(See Gilbert (27) and Simberloff (76) for reviews
of studies that confirm or refute the equilibrium
theory.) In any case, the island analogy—that
much of the natural diversity is being reduced
and confined to small, often isolated areas—is
not in dispute,
Nature reserves serve as islands for species
incapable of surviving in human-dominated
habitats. Isolated natural areas are likely to
experience declining numbers of species when
their size is reduced by deforestation or similar
habitat changes. The analogy between islands
and nature reserves was reinforced by findings
from some of the early tests of equilibrium theory. These findings led to proposed design criteria for nature reserves intended to minimize
the loss of species over time (53). The designs
called for large nature reserves near each other,
to reduce the effects of small areas and distances on species survival. Other design elements not explicitly derived from equilibrium
theory but thought to maintain a greater number of species at equilibrium also exist. However, these are rather academic “all other things
being equal” principles, and on the ground,
complex habitat differences among areas should
weigh more heavily in pragmatic choices of
which sites to conserve.
The applicability of insular ecology to conservation is being tested by the World Wildlife
Fund’s Minimum Critical Size of Ecosystems
Project (49). Biologists took inventories of plant
and animal life in an Amazon forest area before it was fragmented by development. Vari-
ous-sized patches of forest were kept intact
through coordination with the deforestation
and development program, and biologists now
monitor plant and animal populations in each
patch. Although the project is only 20 years old,
changes in the biota are already evident (47,48).
The guidelines for optimum biological design
still have many limitations (72). Most of the relevant research has focused on animals, particularly forest-dwelling birds; too little research
has been conducted on plants or on other types
Ch. 5—Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite
●
107
of habitats. Also, the occurrence and persist-
ence of a species on any particular site may
be governed not only by the populations on that
site but also by whether groups of loosely connected populations can survive in the region
(46,71). This sort of scientific question requires
long-term study, which is only beginning to be
conducted.
As the Earth increasingly becomes a patchwork of natural and developed areas, the effects of activities on or near the boundaries of
protected areas are becoming more important.
Small areas and those with angular boundaries
have a higher proportion of boundary-to-interior than larger or more circular areas. Nature
reserves seldom have sharply defined natural
boundaries like oceanic islands. Instead they
have political boundaries that can do only so
much to prevent movements in and out. Many
species can migrate across nature reserve
boundaries, and the results of human activities
(e.g., pollution) may enter by air, water, or land.
Consequently, another theory on the optimum
design of protected areas, “the boundary model,” has been proposed. It accounts for the
boundary effects, including the effects of human activities (69).
Designated protected areas include both political and biological boundaries. Some of the
biological boundaries are the natural edges between ecosystems; others result from human
activities, most of which originate outside political boundaries. Those biological boundaries
that fit the ecological definition of an “edge”
(box 5-B) may increase local diversity as edgeadapted species prosper. Over time, however,
survival of species in the interior may be reduced if edges are enlarged, because the habitat for species adapted to less-disturbed conditions is reduced. Poor protection at the political
boundaries generally shifts the biological
boundaries toward an area’s interior.
Zones where resource-conserving development activities are encouraged have been tested
to buffer the boundary effect (e.g., the united
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization’s (UNESCO) Man and the Biosphere Program). Such buffer zones can help
reserves by increasing the habitat area and min-
Box 5-B.-The Edge Effect
Natural boundaries between ecosystems,
or edges, are considered to be ecologically
diverse areas. Edges can be created by
human manipulation of vegetation in an attempt to encourage maximum local diversity (14). Along an edge, animals from each
of the abutting vegetation types may be
found, together with animals that make frequent use of more than one vegetation type
and those that specialize on the edge itself
(41). Game animals commonly are edgeadapted, as are animals of many urban, suburban, and agricultural areas (e.g., birds) (8).
imizing the potential exposure to harm. The
idea of buffer zones is not new, but implementation has been slow; few evaluations have been
done yet to develop guidelines about the necessary character and width of the zones or the
shifting nature of boundaries.
Corridors of habitat to connect nature reserves have been proposed for sites where reserve sizes are below-optimum. These corridors
should facilitate gene flow and the dispersal
of individuals between protected areas, which
should, in turn, increase the effective size of
populations and thus raise the chance of survival for semi-isolated groups (6). Also, corridors could increase the recolonization rate
if species are eliminated locally (78). Corridors,
however, are another theoretical concept, and
they may not be appropriate for all sites. As
noted earlier, geographic isolation is a cause
of genetic diversity. Thus, corridors where none
previously existed might cause locally adapted
genotypes to be lost due to gene flow. The applicability of corridors is another aspect of design theory now being actively researched.
The use of corridors and boundary zones has
been proposed for protected areas in the Western Cascades region of the United States, This
area contains the largest tract of uncut forest
in the conterminous United States as well as
natural riparian habitats (32). The proposal suggests surrounding islands of old-growth forest
with zones of low-intensity, long-rotation tim-
108 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
ber harvesting and then linking the islands by
corridors of old-growth vegetation. This design
would presumably provide mobility for species
like the cougar and bobcat—far-ranging carnivores that would have populations too small
for survival and continued evolution if confined
to a single habitat island. Proposals like this
must be considered planning hypotheses, suggested by general theory; and as such must be
subjected to close, case-by-case scrutiny before
implementation.
Genetcs
Genetic considerations are another dominant
concern in the literature on population viability and conservation. Attempts are being made
to determine the smallest number of interbreeding individuals that will enable a species to
survive indefinitely—adapting to changing environmental conditions without suffering the negative effects of a small population size (population instability, erosion of genetic variability,
inbreeding). Because each individual carries
only part of the genetic variation characteristic of its species, the size of a population—and
thus, the amount of genetic variation—may determine how much and how fast a population
can evolve.
Application of genetics to the issue of population size and viability has led to theoretical
estimates of minimum populations for successful conservation of birds and mammals. O n e
such estimate, known as the 50/500 rule, is that
effective population size (in genetics sense) of
50 breeding adults is the minimum needed to
sustain captive breeding programs over decades or a century (e. g., as in zoos), but a population 10 times as large is needed to sustain a
species in its natural habitat as it evolves over
millennia to survive changing environmental
stresses (25,45),
The 50/500 rule is an approximation based
on studies of only a few species. But the effect
of population size depends on several factors
that differ for various species, such as sex ratio, age structure, mating behavior, and b e haviors such as feeding. Thus the rule, when
applied to a particular species, could project
a need for populations larger than 50/500—
perhaps orders of magnitude larger. Empirical
or experimental evidence is lacking to determine how resilient a “genetically viable” population would be when confronted with other
pressures (e.g., demographic, environmental,
or catastrophic uncertainty) (72),
Population Dynamics
Scientists have long recognized that, in general, smaller populations are more susceptible
to extinction than larger ones, because death
for individual organisms is an event determined
largely by change, and populations are collections of individuals. Models of the impact o f
change on individual births and deaths were
developed decades ago (e.g., ref. 21), and these
have been applied to estimate the extinction
time for particular species under various circumstances. Models also have been developed
to evaluate the effect of chance environmental
variations and chance population-wide catastrophes.
Recently, more sophisticated models of stochastic population dynamics have been formulated specifically to investigate questions o f
population viability. These models do not give
specific prescriptions for minimum population
size to assure survival, but they are leading to
a better understanding of the role of chance in
populations. They indicate that to avoid extinction resulting from the impact of chance on individual births and deaths may require only a
few hundred breeding individuals. But larger,
perhaps much larger, population sizes are necessary if the condition of the species’ environment varies, and still larger populations a r e
needed for species that are susceptible to catastrophes (72).
The modeling approach is useful but has significant limitations. First, data for population
models encompassing both environmental and
genetic factors exist for only a few species. Also,
species experience the effects of chance at individual, environmental, population, and genetic levels. But models that could simultaneously simulate all these factors would be too
complex for existing analytical capabilities,
Ch. 5—Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite
Even if such models were developed, they could
prove very costly to use (72).
The theoretical population models are yielding other plausible hypotheses, some of which
have important implications for conservation.
Extinction probabilities depend critically on
population growth rates, on environmentally
induced variability in this rate, and on particular catastrophic scenarios to which the species
are subject. One recent analysis employs a stochastic population model and the general relationships between body-size and population
growth rates and between body-size and population density to estimate the sizes of populations and habitats necessary for mammals to
have a 95 percent probability of persistence for
1,000 years.
The preliminary results from this analysis are
startling. For larger animals, the viable popu-
●
109
lation size is smaller, but the necessary habitat
must be larger to support the requisite populations. Thus, smaller mammals can have a viable population size of a million individuals but
a habitat requiring only tens of square kilometers. The largest mammals, on the other hand,
may have a viable population with only hundreds of individuals but may need a million
square kilometers of habitat (3).
These are preliminary analyses, But even if
subsequent work reduces the estimates by two
orders of magnitude, larger mammals may need
contiguous habitats of tens of thousands of
square kilometers to survive indefinitely, Few
protected natural areas are that large, implying that conservation strategies for certain species should not depend as much on protected
reserves as on monitoring and managing larger
areas (24).
PROTECTED AREAS
Since the world’s first two national parks
were established in the 1870s, some 3,500 protected areas have been set aside for conservation, covering some 4.25 million square kilometers (1,050 million acres) (35). (See figure 5-1
for rate of growth.)
Growth in the number and size of protected
areas was slow at first. It accelerated during
the 1920s and 1930s, halted during world War
II, and regained momentum by the early 1950s.
The number doubled during the 1970s, but
growth has slowed over the past few years (33).
Before 1970, most protected areas were located
in industrial countries. But for the past 15 years,
the Third World has led in both numbers added
and rates of establishment.
Designation as a protected area does not necessarily mean that protection is effective, of
course. The extent of actual protection in the
3,500 areas has not been determined, but anecdotal evidence indicates that illegal or unmanaged hunting, fishing, gathering, logging,
farming, and livestock grazing are common
problems (83). Thus, data on designated areas
exaggerate the scope of conservation actually
being achieved.
Acquisition and Designation
Most protected areas are established by of ficial acts designating that uses of particular sites
will be restricted to those compatible with natural ecological conditions. At the Federal level
in the united States, designating a land area
or water body for conservation involves making a formal declaration of intent to assign a
certain category of protection and then providing an opportunity for extensive public comment on the proposed action. Other governments use similar processes, although the
extent of public participation varies.
The degree of protection depends partly on
the objectives of the acquisition or designation.
There are many different types of designations.
Kenya, for example, has national parks, national reserves, nature reserves, and forest reserves. The wildlife sanctuaries in Kiribati in
the South Pacific are very different in conser-
110
Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
Figure 5-l.— Growth of the Global Network of
Protected Areas, 1890.1985
Number of areas
3,000
2,000
national Union for the Conservation of Nature
and Natural Resources (IUCN) provides a series
of 10 management categories (37,38). Protected
areas are categorized according to their management objectives, rather than by the name
used in their official designations (see table 51). Thus, the national parks of the United Kingdom are placed under category V (protected
landscape or seascape), rather than under category II (national parks). Standardization of the
categories also facilitates international comparable 5.1.—Categories and Management Objectives
of Protected Areas
1,000
1. Scientific reserve/strict nature reserve: To protect and
maintain natural processes in an undisturbed state for
0
1870
1890
1910
1930
1950
1970 1985
Year
Extent
of areas
400
300
200
100
0
1870
t
1890
1910
1930
1950
1970 1985
Year
SOURCE: International Union for the Consewation of Nature and Natural Resources, The United Nafiorrs List of National Parks and Protected Areas
(Gland, Switzerland: 1985).
vation terms from wildlife sanctuaries in India. Designated national parks of the united
Kingdom are quite different from national parks
in the united States. And in Spain, national
parks, nature parks, and national hunting reserves indicate different types of protection.
To clarify this situation and to promote the
full range of protected area options, the Inter-
scientific study, environmental monitoring, education,
and maintenance of genetic resources.
Il. Nationa/ park; To protect areas of national or international significance for scientific, educational, and recreational use.
Ill. /Vatural rnonurnent/natura/ /andrnar/c To protect and preserve nationally significant features because of their special interest or unique characteristics.
IV, Managed nature reserve/wildli~e sanctuary: To assure the
conditions necessa~ to protect species, groups of species, biotic communities, or physical features of the environment that require specific human manipulation for
their perpetuation.
V. Protected /andscape or seascape: To maintain nationally significant landscapes characteristic of the harmonious interaction of humans and land, while allowing recreation and tourism within the normal lifestyles and
economic activities of these areas.
V1. Resource reserve: To protect the natural resources of
the area for future use and prevent or contain development activities that could affect the resource, pending
the establishment of objectives based on knowledge and
planning.
V1l. Natura/ biotic area/anthropological reserve: To allow the
way of life of societies living in harmony with the environment to continue.
Vlll. Mu/tip/e-use management area/managed resource area.’
To provide for the sustained production of water, timber, wildlife, pasture, and outdoor recreation, with conservation oriented to the support of the economic activities (although specific zones may also be designed
within these areas to achieve specific conservation objectives).
IX. Biosphere reserve: To conserve an ecologically representative landscape in areas that range from complete
protection to intensive production; to promote ecological monitoring, research and education; and to facilitate
local, regional, and international cooperation.
X. Wor/d heritage site.’ To protect the natural features for
which the area was considered to be of world heritage
quality, and to provide information for worldwide public enlightenment.
SOURCE: J.W. Thorsell, “The Role of Protected Areas in Maintaining Biological
Diversity in Tropical Developing Countries, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985
Ch. 5—Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite
isons and provides a framework for all protected areas.
Criteria for SeIection of
Areas To Protect
Protected areas can be located and managed
to protect biological diversity at three levels:
1. at the ecosystem level: by protecting unique
ecosystems, representative areas for each
main type of ecosystem in a nation or region, and species-rich ecosystems and centers of endemism;
2, at the species level: by giving priority to
the genetically most distinct species (e. g.,
families with few species or genera with
only one species), and to culturally important species and endemic genera and species; and
3. at the gene level: by giving priority to plant
and animal types that have been or are being domesticated, to populations of wild
relatives of domesticated species, and to
wild resource species (those used for food,
fuel, fiber, medicine, construction material, ornament, etc.).
Ecosystem Approach
Conserving ecosystem diversity maintains
not only a variety of landscapes but also broad
species and genetic diversity. Indeed, it may
be the only approach to conserving the many
types of organisms still unknown to science.
A strategy to maintain ecosystem diversity
generally begins with the biogeographic classification system described earlier, The system
can be used to identify which ecosystem types
need to be acquired or designated to achieve
more complete protection of biological diversity.
The extent to which diverse U.S. ecosystems
are represented within protected areas is being assessed on a State-by-State basis by the natural heritage inventory programs of the different States (see ch, 9). Recent estimates of the
proportion of major terrestrial ecosystem types
that are not protected in the Federal domain
vary from 21 to 51 percent, depending on the
●
111
size and number of each type thought to be
needed for adequate protection (13),
The extent to which the world’s terrestrial
ecosystems are included in protected areas has
been crudely estimated using the Udvardy biogeographic classification system, which divides
the world’s land into 193 biogeographical provinces, Since each province typically contains
many distinct types of ecosystems, the degree
to which province locations correlate to protected area locations gives only an approximation of where greater protection is needed. The
3,514 protected areas listed by IUCN are located
in 178 provinces. The coverage is patchy: several provinces have few protected areas, which
implies that numerous unique ecosystems have
yet to be included in the worldwide network
of protected areas (see table 5-2) (33). An estimate of the cost of completing this network is
$1 billion (17).
Ten provinces have fewer than 1,000 square
kilometers protected but more than five protected areas, while another 29 have more than
1,000 square kilometers but only five or fewer
separate protected areas, Determining the extent of the patchiness requires better figures
for analysis, such as accurate estimates of province sizes. In addition, aquatic and azonal ecosystems (e. g., wetlands and coral reefs) do not
fall easily within this system.
A U.S. effort that helps maintain representative aquatic ecosystems is the Marine Sanctuary
Program conducted by the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration of the Department of Commerce. Potential marine sanctuary
sites were listed after consultation with scientific teams familiar with the different ecological values of sections of the coastal zone (86).
All current and future designations into the marine sanctuaries will be made from the siteevaluation list, Maintenance of community or
ecosystem diversity is not a specific objective
of the Marine Sanctuaries Program, but if all
sites on the list were designated sanctuaries,
coastal ecosystem diversity would be significantly protected.
An international effort that contributes to conserving representative ecosystems is UNESCO’s
112 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
Table 5-2.—Coverage of Protected Areas
by Biogeographic Provinces
Provinces lacking any protected areas:
Arctic Archipelago, Arctic Ocean
Argentinean Pampas, Argentina
Ascension/St. Helena, South Atlantic Ocean
Baikha, U.S.S.R.
Burman Rainforest, Burma
Greenland Tundra, Greenland
Laccadive Islands, Laccadive Sea
Lake Ladoga, U.S.S.R.
Lake Tanganuika, Africa
Lake Titicaca, Peru
Lake Turkana, Kenya
Maldives/Chagos Archipelago, Indian Ocean
Pacific Desert
Revillagigedo Island, Alaska
South Trinidad
Provinces with five or fewer protected areas and a total
protected area of less than 1,000 km2 (247,000 acres):
Aldabra, Seychelles
Amirante Isles, Seychelles
Aral Sea, U.S.S.R.
Araucania Forest, Chile
Atlas Saharien Steppe, Algeria-Morocco
Cayo Coco, Cuba
Central Polynesia, Pacific Ocean
Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Christmas Island, Australia
Comoros, Indian Ocean
East Melanesia, South Pacific Ocean
Fernando de Noronha Archipelago, Brazil
Guerrero, Mexico
Hindu Kush Highlands, Afghanistan-Pakistan
Insulantarct ica
Kampuchea
Lake Malawi, Africa
Lake Ukerewe (Victoria), Africa
Malagasy Thorn Forest, Indian Ocean
Mascarene Islands, Indian Ocean
Micronesia, North Pacific Ocean
Patagonia, Argentina
Planaltina, Brazil
Ryukyu Islands, Japan
Sichuan Highlands, China
Sri Lankan Rainforest, Sri Lanka
Taiwan, ROC
Tamaulipas, Mexico
West Anatolia, Turkey
SOURCE J. Harrison, “Status and Trends of Natural Ecosystems Worldwide, ”
OTA commissioned paper, 1985
Man in the Biosphere (MAB) Program. MAB
has established a network of biosphere reserves
in a global system of protected areas (see ch.
10). The objective is to have a comprehensive
system covering all 193 biogeographic provinces, The MAB program exists in 66 countries,
and approximately 256 biosphere reserves have
been designated thus far (61).
Species Approach
Natural areas are also selected to conserve
the habitats of rare or endangered species or
to protect areas with high species endemism.
using species presence as the criteria for protected area location and management is useful
for several reasons (62,82):
●
●
●
Certain species can be used to indicate the
effectiveness of management. If the more
conspicuous rare species cannot survive,
then the design and management of the reserve should be changed.
Species provide a focal point or objective
that people can readily understand.
Some species have an appeal that wins
sympathy, an important factor in raising
funds and public awareness.
Protection of an area to conserve a rare or
endangered species should be based on the best
existing evidence on its location and habitat
needs. The United States has accumulated a
great deal of such information as a result of the
Endangered Species Act and the work of The
Nature Conservancy. For other regions of the
world, information on endangered species
ranges from precise (in northwestern Europe)
to nonexistent (in the Amazon Basin). At the
international level, the IUCN’S Conservation
Monitoring Center tracks the status of species
and publishes its findings in the Red Data Books
(10).
Genetic Resources
Genetic variation within species needs to be
conserved because it enables species to adapt
to changing conditions and provides the raw
material for domestication of plants and animals and the continued improvement of already
domesticated crops and livestock.
Protected areas designated specifically to protect genetic variability of particular species are
often called in-situ genebanks. They may be
established as separate areas for particular crop
relatives, timber trees, animal species, and so
on. Or, the maintenance of genetic diversity of
important species may be one of several objectives of a protected area (63).
Ch. 5—Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite
India and the Soviet Union have expressed
commitment to in-situ conservation of the wild
relatives of crop species (63). India has designated the first gene sanctuary, for citrus, and
some Indian biosphere reserve areas are expected to have genetic conservation as a major objective. For example, a reserve area has
been proposed for the Nilgiri Hills area, which
is rich in wild forms of ginger, tumeric, cardamom, black pepper, mango, jackfruit, plantain,
rice, and millets, The Soviet Union has reportly
designated 127 reserves for protection of wild
relatives of crops and has proposed an additional 20 areas for protection. Expeditions to
a region known as the Central Asian gene center have found 249 species of wild crop relatives (63).
In East Germany, an inventory is being made
of important genetic resources within the country’s nature reserves, including 24 forage crop
species, 51 medicinal plants, and 27 fruit species, As noted earlier, the inventory is expected
to identify about 10,000 places within the country’s reserve system where protection is afforded for plants relevant to breeding, breeding research, and study of the chemistry of
natural substances (68).
Trade-Offs
In selecting areas for onsite maintenance of
biological diversity, trade-offs occur when any
of the above criteria are given priority. If the
●
113
strategy is to protect areas where rare and endangered species are found, then the diversity
of ecosystems that exists may not be maintained
adequately because only certain types include
identified rare species. Concentrating on biogeographic categories for broad coverage of
ecosystem types may not protect habitats for
rare or endangered species sufficiently or for
centers of endemism. The third criterion, protecting genetic variability, includes consideration of economic and social factors that may
contribute less to the objective of maintaining
maximum diversity but aid the larger goal of
conserving resource opportunities for human
welfare.
In practice, other objectives and various social and economic constraints prevail in the decisions on where to locate protected areas.
Other objectives include preservation of scenic
resources, provision of recreation opportunities, and protection of watersheds, Constraints
include budgetary feasibility, competing demands for use of the area, and opportunity for
local support of protected status.
The literature on conservation strategies contains few objective methods to evaluate these
trade-offs, except to note that the three biological approaches—ecosystem, species, and gene
pool—are both complementary and necessary.
Decisions are often initially made by the intuitive judgment of conservationists but ultimately
by the political processes that lead to the official protected area designation.
PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
Planning and management strategies for onsite maintenance seek to conserve either the
species and genetic diversity within a given
area or the diversity of ecosystems across a geographic region. Planning tools range from
mathematical models that simulate how an
area’s biological resources are likely to respond
given different management options to written
plans for natural area management. Management is concerned both with managing external pressures affecting a protected area and
with managing the natural succession of plant
and animal communities within the area, Man-
agement activities range from no intervention
to active manipulation of an ecosystem,
Planning Techniques
Planning for protected areas can begin before designation is finalized, Biologists generally agree that plans to maintain diversity need
to begin with site surveys to determine the following information (65):
the number, abundance, and distribution
of species, and the interactions between
species and community types;
114
774
●
●
●
●
Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
the types, extent, locations, and effects of
human uses, the degree of dependence of
local inhabitants on these uses, and the possible alternatives for activities that are
harmful to the site;
the present and potential threats from
activities outside the immediate area of
concern;
the opportunities for making the site more
useful to local inhabitants; and
the best approach for law enforcement on
the site.
Agency budgets and policies for management
planning often omit some of these surveys, considering them fundamental research rather than
pragmatic planning activities, For example, the
U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s Resource
Management Plan process does not include collection of detailed site data if no deleterious human impact or other problem is known. Biologists argue, however, that the problems cannot
be fully identified without the surveys.
Historically, the specific plans to conserve
biological diversity were left to the area manager to devise and implement. This approach
still prevails in many regions of the world, In
the United States, conflicts in land and water
management and the increasing need to justify
all management activities to a governing institution have resulted in specialized tools for
planning the conservation of biological resources, Much of this development of planning
techniques has occurred in the Federal land
management agencies.
Modeling
A recent innovation in planning techniques
is the use of mathematical models, The models
are highly simplified versions of natural environments. Biological data are used to develop
equations that represent assumptions about
cause-and-effect interactions between plant and
animal populations and their habitats, Numerous equations interact, and the outcome projects responses of the biological resources to
different management options. The accuracy
of the projections depends on how well the
equations and the data reflect the situation in
the natural environment,
Various kinds of wildlife-habitat models have
been used, and recently, the population simulation models described earlier have begun to
be used widely. These population models predict how management activities would affect
population size, structure, and recovery rate.
They can describe, for example, the probable
size of a fish population before and at various
times after a specified fishing season.
Wildlife-habitat models are built from natural history data on species distribution and
abundance in various habitats, from which
cause-and-effect relationships are deduced to
predict how wildlife populations will change
as a result of changed habitat conditions. Indicator Species Models, for instance, focus on
one or a few species known to reflect broader
ecosystem qualities. Another example is the
Habitat Evaluation Procedure used by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service to describe the responses of vegetation and, hence, wildlife habitats to certain management options such as timber harvesting (75),
Geographic Information System models also
account for the changes in vegetation or wildlife habitats that result from different management options, but the output is presented on
maps, which facilitates evaluation of cumulative impacts by area. A complementary technique being developed by U.S. National Park
Service personnel, the Boundary Model, is intended to assess not only management activities but also the effects of human actions outside the protected areas (69).
Biologists warn that the accuracy of models
is constrained by the need to reduce complex,
often poorly understood interactions to assumptions simple enough to be represented with
mathematical equations. Often, data are too
limited to test all the assumptions. None of the
natural area models can predict all the possible ways that biological resources might respond to habitat changes. Thus, models are best
used to make the assumptions and logic of scientists, managers, and natural-area users explicit, so that final plans and management decisions can be based on clear, thorough, and
objective understanding of all perspectives,
Ch. 5—Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite . 115
Management Plans
Management plans can help avoid typical
protected area problems, such as inappropriate development; sporadic, inconsistent, and
ad hoc management; and lack of clearly defined
management objectives. Management planning
also serves to review existing databases, to encourage resource inventories, and to identify
other needed research and monitoring activities. Unfortunately, such plans do not exist for
many of the world’s protected areas, which constitutes a major constraint on maintaining diversity (82).
Species-specific management plans identify
actions for maintaining healthy, reproductive
populations of a particular species, Often, the
species are either economically valuable or are
rare, endangered, or sensitive to certain lander water-management practices. The Office o f
Endangered Species of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the lead agency for recovery plans
to restore populations listed on the F e d e r a l
Threatened and Endangered Species List, For
example, two Federal agencies, two State agencies, one university, and two agencies from British Columbia cooperated in development of the
Selkirk Mountain Caribou Management Plard
Recovery Plan, This plan provides details o n
caribou population dynamics, behavior, and
habitat in Idaho, Washington, and British Columbia, It describes past and present caribou
management activities, specifies management
goals and objectives to recover the species, indicates priorities for action, and assigns these
to specific agencies (87).
Site-specific management plans outline the
options for maintaining biological resources
within given locations, commonly parts of natural areas. For example, the Bureau of L a n d
Management developed a plan to maintain resources within the Burro Creek Section of the
Kingman Resource Area in Arizona (88). The
plan has clearly stated management objectives.
It describes the resources of the site, presents
the management issues pertaining to the area,
details the management practices that will b e
used on the site, and indicates what other resource activities will be allowed (e. g., mining)
(88),
Large-area planning documents can include
maintaining diversity as one objective to be balanced with others, but they generally do not
recommend site-specific actions. Examples in-
clude the plans prepared by the U.S. Forest
Service for national forest management, plans
by the Bureau of Land Management for resource area management, and plans by the National Marine Sanctuary Program for the management of marine sanctuaries. These planning
processes generally involve numerous experts
from various disciplines who identify and
weigh management options. The planning document then describes resources, the options
available for managing those resources for various uses, the trade-offs that would be made in
various resource-use scenarios, and finally, the
proposed management strategy.
National and subnational conservation strategies (NCSS) tend to be generic documents that
may include but are not limited to conserving
biological diversity. Some 30 countries had begun to develop national conservation strategies
by the end of 1985 (62) (see figure 5-2). To date,
only a few NCSS have been completed. The
United States, for example, does not have a plan
for conservation of biological diversity,
One example of a completed countrywide
plan is the Zambia National Conservation Strategy, which identifies the major environmental
issues and ecological zones that need immediate attention in that country (29). Objectives of
the strategy are to maintain the essential life
support systems, maintain genetic diversity of
both domestic and wild species, promote wise
use of natural resources, and maintain suitable
environmental quality and standard of living,
To accomplish these objectives, plans and policies for sustainable management of natural resources are to be integrated with all aspects of
the country’s social and economic development. The strategy outlines schedules of action
for the major agencies and identifies necessary
interagency linkages to assure cooperation, The
official status of this plan and the extent to
which it is being implemented is not clear.
Management plans vary in geographic scale
and levels of specificity. Plans at the more general levels require less detailed information on
116 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
Figure 5-2.—National Conservation Strategy Development Around the World, July 1985
SOURCE
(Gland, Switzerland:
1985)
the characteristics of species but greater understanding of larger cause-and-effect relationships and of social, economic, and political
factors,
Management
Strategies
Increasingly active management of factors
affecting biological diversity will be needed to
overcome the effects of human activity and the
gradual fragmentation of natural areas (89). Natural areas change over time, as various plant
and animal communities succeed one another,
and gradual change in the components and
quantity of biological diversity occurs. To sustain particular components, such as game animals or songbirds, protected-area managers
therefore need to intervene in the natural processes. The interventions vary with objectives,
and conflicts may occur. For example, developing optimum habitat for a particular species
may not be compatible with maximizing the
diversity of community types.
Manipulating habitats to manage particular
species sometimes involves controlling populations of certain animals—removing an exotic
fish from a lake, for example. More often, the
intervention involves modifying vegetation. If
the target species are grazing or browsing animals such as deer, intervention might mean cutting trees to prevent woodlands from evolving
to the climax stage; for prairie birds such as
cranes, it could mean burning grasslands to prevent encroachment by woody plants. Certain
plants may be propagated for food or cover for
the target species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service uses such management techniques in
national wildlife refuges, which are the only
extensive federally owned lands managed chiefly
for conserving wildlife,
Management to maximize the diversity of
community types involves similar interventions. Again, a basic consideration is the variety of plant succession stages to be maintained
within an ecosystem. Manipulation management is likely to be needed to preserve com-
—
Ch. 5—Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite . 117
munities representing early stages of succession. For example, savanna ecosystems are
maintained by fire, wildlife, and human influence. Management techniques to conserve savanna systems include regulating animal numbers and species and using controlled burning.
Rain forests in a mature successional stage require little intervention, but they are likely to
need active protection because they are not generally resilient if cleared in large areas (82).
Where the U.S. Forest Service manages land
with wildlife diversity as a goal, it attempts to
provide an appropriate mix of successional
stages within each plant community (84). The
approach of the U.S. National Park Service is
to maintain natural processes to the extent possible, including catastrophic changes such as
localized fire, to allow a relatively natural mix
of succession stages to occur.
Management strategies have evolved from
strict preservation and protection to multipleuse approaches and, more recently, to integrated approaches. Strict preservation strategy
entails setting aside large blocks of natural areas
where designation and protection alone would
be expected to achieve conservation objectives.
Protection would mean severely restricting the
uses of, and the changes within, an area to ensure the continued natural condition of its biological resources and regular policing of boundaries to prevent trespassing or poaching. Where
possible, fences would be erected to restrict access by humans and livestock.
Moderate versions of this strategy maybe effective in some locations, particularly where
the land is owned by an individual or nongovernmental organization. In many areas, strict
controls are impractical. It has not been very
successful in developing countries. Moreover,
neither fences nor patrols can prevent all external influences from damaging a protected
area. Regular patrols of a marine sanctuary
could not stop the effects of water pollution,
for example.
Strict preservation of biological diversity is
not an explicit objective of any federally protected area in the United States. The objective
closest to it is protection of “biological re-
sources” or “ecological processes” on lands in
the National Wilderness Preservation System,
which is an evolving system of public lands relatively undisturbed by humans and large enough
to have potential for wilderness recreation.
(Most wilderness areas contain at least 5,000
acres, although some in the Eastern United
States are smaller.)
Other countries also have extensive areas set
aside for preservation while allowing some human access. Examples include large segments
of Antarctica and isolated parts of the Amazonian forest. Some natural areas, such as Wood
Buffalo National park in Canada and Salonga
National Park in Zaire, have wardens to guard
the boundaries and prevent trespassing (61), But
increasingly, countries cannot afford to designate large areas for strict preservation. Particularly in developing countries, adequate fences,
patrols, or other means to deny access to designated areas are seldom logistically, economically, or socially possible. In addition, preservation strategies have exacerbated perceived
conflicts between conservation and development,
Another strategy for protected areas is to incorporate multiple uses or objectives. This strategy is usually based on one or two approaches:
developing an optimum mix of several uses on
a local parcel of land or water; or creating a
mosaic of land or water parcels, each with a
designated use, within a 1arger geographic area.
Developing an optimum mix of uses in an
area requires careful incorporation of each objective so that all can be met, This approach
is used by the U.S. Forest Service on national
forest lands and by most States on wildIife areas
and State forests. In national forests, the potential of each subsection is evaluated for recreation, grazing, timber production, wildlife or
fisheries habitat, mineral development, and
other uses. Management objectives for each site
usually include more than one use. Thus, an
area that is managed for timber production may
also provide sites for grazing livestock or foraging wildlife. Sometimes, mining or another use
will be exclusive, at least temporarily.
The California Desert Conservation Area,
managed by the Bureau of Land Management,
118 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
is an example of the second approach to multiple use, in which protected areas are managed
primarily as distinct parcels with different primary uses. The conservation area is broken into
different land units and classified according
to the level of human activity allowed in each.
Research areas, wilderness areas, areas of critical environmental concern, areas of geologic
or archeologic significance, and critical habitats
of endangered or sensitive plant or animal species are mapped and sometimes identified by
markers posted at the sites. The rest of the land
is classified for various levels of use ranging
from restricted to extensive human use and alteration. Management of the area evolves as
human needs for resources of the California
Desert change.
The biosphere reserve concept is another example of multiple-use based on buffer zones that
would moderate the extent that activities affect
the core. The UNESCO Man and the Biosphere
Program (see also ch. 10) champions this idea.
An idealized scheme includes three areas:
The core areas strictly protect ecological
samples of natural ecosystems that can
serve as benchmarks for measuring longterm changes in ecosystems.
2. The buffer zones have land-use controls,
which allow only activities compatible
with protection of the core area, such as
research, environmental education, recreation, and tourism.
3. The transition areas surround the core and
buffer zone and are usually not strictly delineated. In these areas, researchers, managers, and the local population are to cooperate in rehabilitation, traditional use,
development, and experimental research
on natural resources (30).
1,
Box 5-C Cluster Conceprt for
Biosphere Reserves
In the United States, a promising development of biosphere reserves is the cluster concept. The approach is intetidad to link complementary areas administered by different
agencies so they can cooperate in monitoring
research, educational, and management activities.
A particularly promising multiple-unit biosphere reserve is emerging in the Southern Appalachians. Efforts are underway to link the
existing Great Smoky Mountains National
Park, the Forest Service’s Cowaeta Hydrological Station, the Department of Energy’s Oak
Ridge National Environmental Research Park,
and other nearby State and Federal agencies
managing natural resources to forma Southern Appalachian Biosphere Reserve. The existence of a permanent association of Federal
agencies and regional universities has served
as a useful mechanism to help coordinate regional resaarch and management activities involving the biosphere reserve.
Another promising example is on St. John,
the Virgin Islands, where the National Park
Service manages VS. National Park, A cooperative effort involving agencies and
institutions from Puerto Rico, the U.S.
Virgin Islands, and the British Virgin Islands
has coordinated a major research program focused on developing a biosphre reserve on
St. John. As the only U.S. national park in a
developing region, the area provides opportunities in the transfer of research and resource management technologies suitable for
small islands of the region.
The areas should facilitate management by reducing conflicts, because the more incompatible uses would be physically distant from one
another. And effectiveness of protection should
be enhanced, because conflicting uses could
be detected before they spread into the core (see
box 5-C).
plans for such development now exist and await
political commitment and implementation in
several nations. One example is the development plan for the San Lorenzo Canyon area in
Mexico (60). Multiple-use development is indicated for a 225,()()()-acre chaparral and desert area where watershed protection is a primary objective, The plan delineates four zones:
This approach has not yet been implemented
sufficiently to assess its worldwide effect, but
1, a core scientific area to be used for research
and watershed protection,
Ch. 5—Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite
119
Figure 5-3.— Design of a Coastal or Marine Protected Area
Step 1
Step 3
Step 2
aHabltat~ adjacent and linked to habitats of interest by species movements or flows of nutrients
bHeadqua~ers, ranger stations; and traditional fishing, recreational, research, and education ZOneS
CwaterShedS,
a g r i c u l t u r a l lands, urban and Industrial developrnerlts, riVE?K3, a n d eSt UaHf3S
dshipplng lanes, commercial fishing grounds, and Intensive use zones
SOURCE R V Salm, kfar~ne and Coasta/ Protected Areas A Guide for Planners and Managers (Gland. Switzerland International Unton
for the Conserwatlon of Nature and Natural Resources, 1984)
2. a primitive area to be used for watershed
protection and recreation,
3. an extensive use area for recreation and
education, and
4. a natural recovery area eventually for agricultural and commercial use.
Zoned development seems an especially important concept for marine and coastal areas,
which are particularly vulnerable to events outside their boundaries even when they are protected. Figure 5-3 is an idealized design for a
coastal- or marine-protected area.
A more recently developed integrated approach holds potential for resolving many of
the problems that arise in onsite maintenance
of biological diversity. An example is the integrated regional development planning, which
is discussed later in this chapter.
Ecosystem Restoration
As degraded ecosystems become more common, restoration will play an increasing role
in conserving biological diversity. Underlying
most of the discussion in this chapter has been
the assumption that protected areas are designated where ecosystems are in a relatively natural condition. Another important approach,
however, is to protect and sometimes manipulate degraded ecosystems in order to restore
some degree of biological diversity. Restoration
techniques are being used by conservation organizations, such as The Nature Conservancy and
the Audubon Society, and by government agen-
cies, such as the National Park Service to enlarge or adjust the shape of reserves (43).
Reclamation is action intended to restore
damaged ecosystems to productive use (43).
Restoration is the re-creation of entire communities of organisms, closely modeled on communities that occur naturally. Reclamation
gradually becomes restoration as more and
more naturally occurring species are used and
as natural plant and animal succession occurs.
Restoration technologies, which depend heavily on the knowledge gained from reclamation
experience, attempt to accelerate natural succession processes while assuring that indigenous rather than exotic species dominate.
Restoration is an onsite method that provides
links with offsite activities to preserve species.
Zoos and botanic gardens conserve rare species
offsite for reintroduction onsite (see ch. 6),
Nurseries and seed facilities provide plants and
seeds for a variety of revegetation efforts, although materials for most native plants still
must be gathered from the wild (42,44). Reintroductions of animals from captive populations
are few but include the Arabian oryx, the golden
lion tamarin (a recent effort), and plans to reintroduce Przewalski’s horse in Mongolia (see ch.
6, box 6-E). A few plant reintroductions from
offsite collections also exist. The Knowlton’s
cactus (Pedlocactus knowltonii) has been
returned to the natural environment from cuttings by the Fish and Wildlife Service (55).
Some States, such as Florida, require the use
of native species in reclamation, but reclama-
120 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
tion work generally falls short of restoration.
Reclamation is generally task-oriented, and the
objective is usually to establish productive plant
cover, such as pasture or stands of trees. Relatively little attention is given to species not
directly related to the objective, and relatively
few species are used. Consequently, efforts to
reclaim land have largely focused on the use
of common plant and animal species that are
easily propagated and multiply rapidly. Often
these are nonnative species; rare or difficultto-establish species are seldom used. It is easiest and most cost-effective to use those few species that have been shown to be adequate for
particular uses, such as for stabilizing beaches.
Tree planting is one of the most frequently
used techniques for reclaiming degraded lands,
and a wealth of literature on various forms of
reforestation exists (23,84). The potential for
reforesting degraded forest land is especially
great in the tropics (83), But restoring forests
with diverse native species is seldom attempted.
Instead, most programs use one or a few exotic
species, partly because of a lack of seeds and
techniques to propagate native trees and partly
because of the cost-effectiveness of planting
fast-growing tree species known to have commercial value,
The Santa Rosa National Park in Costa Rica
is one of the few forest restorations that has
been undertaken. The area was a cattle ranch
for 400 years, but since designation as a protected area, a dry forest ecosystem of native
species has been reestablished from seed
sources on nearby mountain slopes, The principal management technique has been to stop
the human-caused fires, allowing woody species to reinvade the pure grass pastures. The
restorative effect has now been proved and is
to be used in the proposed Guanacaste National
Park (39).
Prairie restoration offers a kind of prototype
for the development and use of ecosystem restoration. Restoration of prairies began early,
motivated by concerns such as diversity and
community authenticity (43). Techniques developed to restore prairies to moderately high
levels of native plant diversity borrow exten-
.4
credit” D
Planting prairie plants in a restoration project at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison Arboretum. The
purpose of the experiment is to study competition
between species by planting various combinations.
The results will be useful in developing techniques for
introducing ‘(difficult” species into prairies as they
are being restored and managed.
sively from agriculture techniques used in
prairies. One approach to restoring 2 to 40 hectares recommends plowing, followed by disking at intervals of a year to reduce weeds, followed by seeding with a mixture of prairie
species (56). In Crex Meadows, WI, restoration
of prairie plants and animals was possible with
little intervention other than protection and
controlled burning, because many native prairie species had apparently continued to grow,
unobserved, for decades while the site was forested, Little information on the cost of prairie
restoration is available. Up to now, much of
the effort that has gone into restoring the highest quality prairies has depended heavily on
dedicated volunteers (4).
Although the technology of reclamation has
developed rapidly in recent years, partly as a
result of legislation such as the Surface Mine
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, restoration has not yet become an established discipline. Restoration research and technology
development vary tremendously from one natural community to the next.
The availability of seed and plant stock for
varieties adapted to local conditions is a problem. Use of local seeds is not required by law,
Ch. 5—Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite
and the high cost of small, special seed collections often precludes use of local seeds in favor of cheaper, nonlocal ones of relatively few
species (3 I ,54). Western nurseries and the Soil
Conservation Service’s Plant Material Centers
have responded to the demand for more native
plants, but many species still are not available
commercially. For many that are available,
germplasm is limited to specialized ecotypes
or registered cultivars with limited value for
restoration.
The cost of reclamation varies greatly, depending on the extent of disturbance, the extent of restoration, and the type of ecosystem.
The average cost of seeding for reclamation of
surface mines in seven Western States has been
estimated at $620 per hectare (in 1977 dollars)
(59). This estimate included fertilization, mulching, and irrigation (the most expensive component), The cost of earth-moving brought the
total bill to $10,000 per hectare. Mechanical
●
121
planting of shrubs costs from $5 OO to $2,OOO
per hectare in Utah, depending on whether
bareroot or containerized stock was used (20).
Hand-planting to simulate natural vegetation
patterns would further increase costs.
Establishing the same community that occurred on a site prior to disturbance is often
not feasible because of the high cost and a lack
of information regarding, for example, necessary conditions for seed germination and other
aspects of survival and reproduction of native
species. Although restoration technologies cannot quickly restore the diversity that existed before degradation, they can be used to break the
cycle of resource degradation and to reestablish a community of indigenous organisms.
Normal plant and animal succession may eventually lead to a self-sustaining and relatively natural ecosystem that provides most of the values
of biological diversity.
OUTSIDE PROTECTED AREAS
Most of the discussion thus far has dealt with
protected areas where maintaining biological
diversity is a management objective. But the
majority of biological resources are found outside these areas. Few strategies have been designed yet for conserving diversity in nondesignated areas. Various resource conservation
techniques with other objectives serve to enhance biological diversity, however.
Genetic Resources for Agriculture
where traditional farming practices prevail.
Large proportions of these resources (5o percent or more for many species) have not yet
been evaluated or collected for preservation offsite (5o). Germplasm collection programs focus
on the world’s major staple crops, so many species that are not yet widely grown are unlikely
to be preserved offsite. Both these and local varieties of major crops are threatened with extinction as they are replaced by modern varieties, which the economics of agriculture favor.
Conservation of genetic variability outside
protected areas is especially important because
so many crop varieties and livestock species
and many of their wild relatives are not found
in areas designated for protection, In addition,
evolutionary processes, such as crop-pest and
crop-pathogen interactions, can continue. This
type of conservation occurs when farmers have
chosen to maintain traditional crop varieties
and livestock breeds.
A diverse mix of local varieties theoretically
protects traditional farmers from catastrophic
crop losses. And, with locally adapted varieties,
farmers depend less on subsidized inputs, such
as pesticides, fertilizers, irrigation equipment,
and processed animal feed. In many countries,
traditional farmers appear to be motivated more
by avoiding risk than by maximizing profit.
Nevertheless, as agricultural development occurs, farmers are shifting to fewer varieties,
modern methods, and higher profits.
Crop varieties with a broad genetic base and
wild relatives of crop plants are mainly located
One response to this trend is the recently
established program to monitor the remaining
122 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
collections of teosinte, a wild relative of maize
found only in Mexico, Guatemala, and Honduras,
The habitats for teosinte include some of Mexico’s best agricultural land, where it survives
in narrow strips of untilled soil along stone
fences bordering maize fields. As land use intensifies, these strips are brought into cultivation, And isolated stands of teosinte that interbreed with maize can be genetically “swamped”
by the maize and lose their ability to disperse
seed. Thus, teosinte populations with unique
genetic characteristics of potential value for
maize breeding are threatened with extinction.
Fortunately, the international agricultural research institute that focuses on maize, Centro
International de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo
(CIMMYT), is located near many of the sites
where teosinte still grows, The CIMMYT maize
staff and colleagues in the Mexican and Guatemala national maize research programs have
begun a monitoring program, The status of each
teosinte population is checked annually. The
intention is to take preservation action whenever a recognized population is placed in immediate danger of extinction (9).
Another way to safeguard genetic resources
outside protected areas would be to preserve
traditional agriculture systems in selected regions. To do this, farming systems must become
more productive and produce more cash income. Presumably, higher productivity means
applying scientific methods for crop production and genetic development but keeping the
local varieties and livestock breeds. Some farming systems research does attempt this. For example, the Centro Agronomic Tropical de Investigaciones y Ensenanza has consulted with
the Kuna people of northeastern Panama about
agricultural development of their 60,000-hectare,
indigenous-reserve area in the context of a park
project (91). Similarly, the International Council for Research in Agroforestry in Africa trains
researchers to identify opportunities for marginal improvements in traditional farming systems. But such work is outside the mainstream
of agricultural development and is at best a
modest and poorly funded effort.
A complementary approach is for modern
farmers to maintain diverse varieties while rely-
ing on other income sources. They generally
must turn to off-farm income or other, more
modern areas of their farms. In developing
countries, where traditional farming is still extensive and crop and livestock diversity are
greatest, continued planting of nonprofitable
traditional varieties would probably have to be
subsidized.
Such an approach is not without precedent.
Native American farmers are paid to produce
seed of traditional cultivars in Arizona by a nonprofit organization, Native Seeds/SEARCH (58),
In developing countries, similar programs
might be administered by some of the same agricultural research organizations that maintain
offsite germplasm collections. But the agricultural research community has not identified this
as a priority for their limited funds. At best,
only a very small sample of diversity could be
maintained on subsidized traditional farms. It
seems that such subsidies would be as costeffective as marginal improvements in offsite
collections.
Conservation As A Type
of Development
Maintaining biological diversity by establishing parks is becoming increasingly difficult because of demographic, economic, and political pressures. The preservation approach to
conservation may become less common in the
future, especially in tropical developing countries
where diversity seems to be most threatened.
As a consequence, conservation organizations
and conservationists within development organizations, such as the Agency for International
Development (AID), the World Bank, and the
Organization of American States (OAS), have
begun to promote the concept that biological
diversity can be conserved where natural resources are being developed if conservation is
considered a development activity.
A recently published paper of the IUCN Commission on Ecology (64) supports this concept:
The idea of basing conservation on the fate
of particular species or even on the maintenance of a natural diversity of species will
become even less tenable as the number of
Ch. 5—Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite
threatened species increases and their refuges
disappear. Natural areas will have to be designed in conjunction with the goals of regional
development and justified on the basis of ecological processes operating within the entire
developed region and not just within natural
areas.
Conservation has long been a criterion in
carefully planned development of agriculture,
forestry, fisheries, grazing land, and other
primary-industry development. But maintenance of biological diversity is relatively new
as an explicit development objective. Some
innovative approaches are beginning to be implemented, including the use of conflict resolution and systems analysis techniques in resource development planning.
Integrated Regional Development Planning
(IRDP), being used by the OAS (60,66), subdivides a region into small spatial units and analyzes the sectoral interactions in each, in contrast to approaches that subdivide issues into
sectoral components. IRDP addresses interactions, like competition for the same goods or
services by two or more interest groups, and
analyzes changes that occur in the mix of available goods and services as a result of activities
in one sector that are detrimental to another
sector.
●
123
IRDP uses systems analysis and conflict resolution methods to distribute the costs and benefits of development activities throughout affected populations or sectors. Integration of all
the sectors—including maintenance of biological diversity—is necessary because individual
sectoral activities may help, but often hinder,
activities of other sectors aimed at appropriating goods and services from the same or allied
ecosystems. Decisions about which activities
are appropriate or how each can be adjusted
to reduce conflict are made through negotiation by parties representing all the sectors that
are involved (67).
A major constraint to considering diversity
maintenance as a development activity is that
the benefits of diversity are hard to calculate.
No economic valuation techniques exist that
can capture its full value. Thus, biological diversity has not fared well under the standard costbenefit analyses applied to development activities, Although some efforts have been made
to better account for biological diversity values,
the results have been unsatisfactory and not
widely applied. (See ch. 11 for further discuss on of this topic. )
DATA FOR ONSITE MAINTENANCE OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
To set priorities and to allocate funds and
other resources, decisionmakers need to know
how various ecosystems contribute to biological diversity, how vulnerable they are to degradation, how well protected they are by existing
programs, and what the social and economic
prospects are for local cooperation. Management programs need details on the nutrition,
space, and reproductive requirements of organisms. Most such information comes from taxonomy, biogeography, natural history, ecology,
anthropology, and sociology. For agricultural
species, information is also needed on genetics,
microbiology, seed technology, and physiology.
Generally, enough is known to improve substantially the programs for maintaining diver-
sity, But more and better data on many aspects
of this subject are badly needed, and funding
for conservation falls far short of the needs implied by the apparent rates and consequences
of diversity loss (see ch. 3). So investments must
be concentrated on the most cost-effective approaches possible, which implies the need to
thoroughly understand the ecological, social,
and economic aspects of biological diversity
(77).
Uneven Quality of Information
The quality of data on biological diversity is
uneven for different ecosystems and different
parts of the world, For some places, such as
124 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
tropical South America, data are rudimentary
and theories are very tentative. For others, such
as temperate North America, information is
well developed and theories have been extensively tested. The unevenness is in part due to
data being collected for different purposes,
stored in different forms, and scattered among
different institutions.
In general, both data and theories regarding
biological diversity are better for temperate than
for tropical biology; better for terrestrial than
for aquatic sites; better for birds, mammals, and
vascular plants than for the lower classes of
organisms; and better for the few major crop
and livestock species used in modern agriculture than for the many species used in traditional agriculture. Taxonomic coverage is increasing, but the pace is slow relative to the
quantity of unknown organisms. Each year
about 3 species of birds, 11 mammals, up to
100 fish, and dozens of amphibians and reptiles are identified for the first time (22,57). Insects are the largest order of organisms, and
hundreds of species are newly identified annually (57); nevertheless, estimates of the number of insect species not yet identified range
from 1 to 30 million (18).
Information needed to maintain diversity is
even more limited on the ecosystem and community levels, partly because ecology is a younger discipline than taxonomy. Moreover, species interactions within ecosystems are so
subtle that laborious, time-consuming field research is necessary to understand them. For
example, the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker (Dezzdrocopus borealis) requires oldgrowth longleaf and loblolly pine trees for nesting. These pines persist in forest communities
where occasional fires destroy the seedlings of
other, more competitive species (5). Such fires
require accumulation of appropriate fuel to
carry the kinds of fires that favor the two pine
seedlings. Conservation of red-cockaded woodpeckers, therefore, entails conserving appropriate species to generate the right kind of vegetation and litter on the forest floor.
Efforts to collect biological information have
increased during the last two decades as a result of growing awareness of the importance
of services provided by natural ecosystems and
of the need for better use and management of
natural resources. Biological data are now collected and analyzed at the international, national, and local levels. Databases—the collections of data that are organized for further
analyses—can be used to make onsite diversity
maintenance efforts substantially more effective.
International databases provide overviews
that can identify potential gaps, status, and
trends of biological diversity worldwide. The
main international organizations involved in
collecting biological data are the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP); the
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO);
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO); the Conservation Monitoring Center (C MC) of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
and Natural Resources (I UCN); the World Wildlife Fund/Conservation Foundation; The Nature Conservancy International (TNCI); and the
International Council for Bird Preservation (10).
(See ch. 10 for further discussion of international databases.)
The utility of international databases has been
limited because they are not readily available
to resource planners and other analysts who
might use them to advise development decisionmakers. To resolve this problem, the UNEP’S
Global Environment Monitoring System (GEMS)
program is establishing a computerized Global
Resource Information Database (GRID). This
program will centralize access to numerous
environmental databases and will include training in data analysis for developing-country participants.
DaTa for Management of Diversity
Biological data needed to plan management
of diversity and other natural resources at the
Ch. 5—Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite
national level are collected by government
agencies, academic institutions, and research
centers. Completeness of the information varies
from country to country. Several countries,
such as Australia and Sweden, have compiled
comprehensive biological surveys of their flora
and fauna. Other countries, such as the Soviet
Union and China, and some international regions, such as North, East, and West Africa,
have completed or have made significant progress toward completing surveys of their flora.
North America is the only part of the north temperate zone that has neither synthesized the
data on its plant and animaI resources nor created a national biological database (81).
In fact, the United States has abundant information on its biota at a regional or broad
ecosystem level. But data acquisition is designed to serve the specific objectives of various organizations. As a result, many of the databases relevant to biological diversity are widely
scattered, are often incompatible, and are i n
effect inaccessible to numerous potential users.
The objective of maintaining biological diversity has been only a tangential consideration
in most data-collection efforts. However, files
on endangered species assembled by the Smithsonian Institution and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service do address an important aspect of
species diversity directly.
The only comprehensive nationwide information system dealing directly with both species and ecosystem diversity is the national
aggregation of State Natural Heritage Program
data. This system is extensively used for decisionmaking on acquisition, designation, and
management of protected areas.
The heritage program inventories are continually updated through a system of information
gathering and ranking. They begin with a broad
information search of secondary sources for
rare species and ecosystems. These are then
ranked, and further search, including field
work, takes place for the rarest ones. The inventory is made up of a series of manual and
computer files containing the species and ecosystem’s classification, location, site where it
occurs, land ownership of the site, and sites
●
125
located on already protected land, Inventory
data are plotted on U.S. Geological Survey maps
to analyze which lands are most important t o
protect and what impacts specific development
projects will have on diversity,
In recent years a great deal of attention has
been given to the use of computers for managing biological data. Data management is facilitated by the flexibility of the hardware and by
the many types of software on the market today,
For example, Geographic Information Systems
(GIS) are being used by the Forest Service and
the National Park Service to integrate databases
with spatial information. This technique produces overlay maps that have great potential
to aid efforts to maintain biological diversity
(figure s-q). At present such overlay maps are
used to assess the extent to which ecosystem
diversity is being protected by combining details on ecosystem and species distribution with
information on boundaries of various types of
protected areas. International and nongovernment agencies are also finding the technique
useful: GIS are a basic tool for GRID, The Nature Conservancy (TNC] has recently begun
using GIS in its international program, and
IUCN’S Conservation Monitoring Center plans
to acquire a system, once funding is secured
(33).
The data on biological diversity generated at
the State level are being aggregated at the national level by TNC. The quality and quantity
of information varies from State to State, a few
States do not yet have programs, and inventory
of species and communities that are not threatened is just beginning. In spite of these limitations, this is the most comprehensive national
database on biological diversity, In many geographic areas, TNC is the only institution collecting data on rare, sensitive, or endemic resources that may require special management
to maintain their integrity as populations. In
these areas, the heritage programs help to fill
an important gap in biological data needed for
the onsite maintenance of biological diversity.
Selection among such data management technologies as the GIS depends on the financial
resources and the objectives of the organiza-
126 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
Figure 5-4.—Representation of a Geographic
Information System Function Overlavina Several
Types of Environmental Data -
Human
settlements
tion sponsoring the data collection. If the objective is to provide an overview of the status
and trends of biological diversity in large areas,
then remote sensing with sample surveys on
the ground for verification and analysis with
GIS maybe the most cost-effective approach.
If the objective is to design a management plan
for a particular area, detailed field surveys are
necessary, but tools such as GIS may still prove
valuable.
For implementation of resource development, information on biological diversity at a
local, site-specific level is most important. Yet
this is the level at which the quality of biological information is most variable. For some heavily studied areas, detailed field inventories and
analyses of ecosystem interactions have been
completed, whereas for others, especially the
remote areas, often little detail of biological
diversity is known. Development of needed sitespecific diversity data is constrained by the
common attitude of land managers that diversity assessment is fundamental research that
should be limited mainly to land areas where
research is the designated major use. This is
a problem even for agencies that are sensitive
to the issue of biological diversity, such as the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Animal
populations
Vegetation
cover
Water
resources
Coordination
Soil
types
Base
map
SOURCE. United Nations Environmental
itoring Systems,
Resource
GEMS Publication, 1985).
Environment MonDatabases (Nairobi:
The quantity of biological data may increase
as information becomes easier to handle and
less costly to acquire and maintain. Linking
databases developed for different purposes can
greatly increase their utility and thus their costeffectiveness. Data incompatibility hinders
such linking, however, making it necessary to
reenter data manually at great cost, or more
often to forgo the improved analysis that linked
databases would allow. Data sharing in the
United States among and within Federal agencies frequently is constrained by a lack of standards. For example, different agencies generally
use different terminology to define ecosystem
types, This problem also exists at the international level, especially where classification
schemes used to aggregate data are not standardized.
Ch. 5—Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite
Coordination of data-collection efforts can reduce incompatibilities, lessen duplications, and
identify gaps in collection. For example, C M C
and UNESCO plan to feed information into the
GRID system. TNC’S regional databank has incorporated the classification system used by
CMC to improve compatibility between the two
data systems (33).
Coordination efforts at the U.S. Federal level
have involved formal interagency cooperative
agreements. (See OTA Background Paper #2,
Assessing Biological Diversity in the United
States: Data Considerations, for a description
of these Federal interagency efforts to coordinate data collection and maintenance.) These
efforts have resulted in recommendations and
guidelines for standardization of databases.
Most agencies would have to invest some personnel and funding to make their databases
compatible with those of other agencies, however, which may not occur without specific congressional mandates.
Social and Economic Data
Human activities are the main cause of the
accelerated loss of biological diversity, and successful implementation of onsite maintenance
methods described in this chapter depends on
cooperation of people living on and near the
land that is affected. Collection and analysis
of social and economic data, therefore, are essential to understanding the changing patterns
of biological diversity and to planning and implementing conservation strategies (7).
The complexity of natural ecosystems rivals
the complexity of social and economic processes that affect them. Thus, socioeconomic research should be no less rigorous than the biological research. Unfortunately, social and
economic data are often the weak link in conservation planning.
Demography is a well-established social science with reliable data sources, theories, and
●
127
methods to describe population patterns. Theories on how population growth under various
circumstances affects biological diversity are
lacking, however.
The status of biological diversity is greatly
affected by the supply and demand of raw materials, agricultural commodities, and natural
products. Natural-resource economic data and
analytical methods have been developed for
other fields of resource management, such as
forestry, fisheries, and agriculture, but application of economics to issues of biological
diversity has hardly begun. Some biologists and
geographers have started to do economic analyses, but few professional economists are interested in biological diversity.
Data on technological change, especially in
agriculture and pollution-causation and abatement, are sometimes assessed as part of the
environmental-impact assessment process required when Federal funding is involved in resource development in the United States. Improved methods for such assessment have
developed in the years since the National Environmental Policy Act became law. But methods for technology-impact assessment are sorely
lacking for other parts of the world, especially
for the tropical regions where diversity is most
threatened.
Social and political processes influencing
how biological diversity is perceived and valued are probably the least well-understood and,
in the long run, the most important factors
affecting success of onsite diversity maintenance. Geographers, sociologists, anthropologists, historians, and biologists who have ventured outside their field of technical expertise
have developed important descriptions of social factors affecting diversity maintenance at
specific sites. But the analysis needed to develop a broader understanding and theories
from which to generalize has yet to be undertaken,
128 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES
Onsite management of natural areas has usually been focused on limiting the impacts of outside pressures. In multiple-use protected areas,
the technologies used to maintain biological
diversity are mainly based on manipulation of
habitats or populations to favor particular species, These methods, many of which derive
from the fields of natural history and wildlife
management, are effective for the target species. Biologists generally agree, however, that
broad biological diversity values are not adequately served by species management alone.
This approach necessarily concentrates on species with immediate commercial or recreational
value and lets too many others, with less obvious values, perish if they do not happen to live
in the type of environment maintained for the
target species. Thus, technologies are needed
to maintain diversity at the ecosystem level,
Onsite maintenance technologies commonly
have been developed in relatively well-known
temperate zone ecosystems. Plant and animal
communities in these ecosystems generally can
recover from moderate human disturbances if
they are protected for years or decades. But biologists are not sanguine about adapting these
technologies to tropical and other ecosystems,
such as coral reefs, that are poorly known and
that have much less natural ability to recover
from disturbances,
Although most existing onsite technologies
are focused on natural areas where development is restricted, attention is beginning to be
directed beyond simple protected area programs. Resource development planning methods that treat conservation as an integral part
of economic and social development have been
devised and tested. These strategies hold promise, but they need to be taken from the conceptual stage to practical implementation.
The remainder of this chapter addresses these
and other opportunities to improve the research, development, and application of onsite
technologies to maintain biological diversity.
An Ecosystem Approach
An ecosystem approach is necessary to maintain biological diversity onsite for many reasons: 1) because the numbers of threatened species and genetically distinct populations is so
high, 2) because so little is known about life histories or even the identity of many species, and
3) because many species are interdependent.
Yet attempts to develop and implement ecosystem approaches are few,
In the United States, development of onsite
maintenance technologies is largely the task of
Federal land-managing agencies, such as the
National Park Service, the Forest Service, the
Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of
Land Management. The mandates of these
agencies emphasize species- and habitat-oriented technologies. A shift toward more ecosystem-oriented management would require
policy changes within the agencies. Most, for
example, consider an inventory of an area’s biological diversity and the investigation of species interactions to be appropriate activities for
basic research programs but not appropriate
as pragmatic resource management activities.
Changes in policies to encourage an ecosystem
approach to protected areas may not occur
without a congressional mandate directing
agencies to manage lands and bodies of water
in a way that maintains ecosystem diversity.
An important strategy for maintaining diversity is to safeguard representative samples of
ecosystems from changes that would reduce
their diversity. The United States lacks a comprehensive program for ecosystem diversity
maintenance, although some efforts are being
made through existing programs. The U. S.MAB program is attempting to establish samples of ecosystems in the United States. Because
the areas are identified on the basis of ecological criteria rather than political boundaries,
various Federal, State, and private organizations must cooperate to implement the program
successfully, which may explain the sluggish
.—
— . —
pace. Federal agencies could be directed to give
more support to interagency and Federal, State,
and private initiatives to support the MAB
agenda.
The number and size of additional protected
areas required for ecosystem diversity maintenance are unknown. Extensive inventory programs (e.g., the State heritage inventories of The
Nature Conservancy) have been initiated to determine how to enhance coverage. But support
has been sporadic and progress is slow. TNC’S
State-level approach and mobilization of private sector support has been effective, so the
Federal Government could continue to support
this and similar programs.
International organizations, led by IUCN and
the World Wildlife Fund/Conservation Foundation, are promoting conservation of samples
of the world’s ecosystems. The coverage of ecosystems, indicated by comparing protected
areas to Udvardy’s biogeographical classification system, is encouraging but still incomplete.
The next major step will be to survey the degree of actual protection in the designated natural areas. Such surveys could also identify gaps
in ecosystem protection at a finer biogeographic
level than Udvardy’s classifications, Better information is needed, especially on aquatic ecosystem types such as coral reefs, to develop and
implement strategies for international ecosystem conservation efforts. A U.S. Government
interagency task force could identify personnel for this task and ways in which their work
might serve the objectives of international conservat ion,
Innovative Technologies for
Developing Countries
Many onsite technologies have been developed in industrialized, temperate zone countries, and thus, they may not be appropriate for
developing countries’ ecosystems, which are
mostly tropical and where the biological, sociopolitical, and economic situations are fundamentally different, Hence, innovative technologies are especially needed in these areas.
The biosphere reserves concept is one such
approach that appears to merit scrutiny and
Ch. 5—Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite
●
129
.
support. Continued U.S. Government support
of UNESCO’s MAB program and ways to increase support for MAB in developing countries could be explored in congressional committee hearings.
Integrated land management that includes
conservation in development activities is
another approach that should be encouraged.
The OAS Integrated Regional Development
planning could provide a model for other development assistance agencies, such as AID or
the World Bank.
Long-Term Multidisciplinary
Research
The most important problems affecting implementation of biological diversity maintenance efforts are not amenable to resolution
by any one field of biology, or indeed by the
natural sciences alone. Biological diversity is
so broad that its maintenance requires methods from numerous disciplines, such as natural history, population biology, genetics, and
ecology. In addition, many other factors—economic, political, and social—contribute to decisions about the sizes, shapes, and locations
of protected areas, Application of social sciences to diversity maintenance, for instance,
to help communicate the issue’s importance to
decisionmakers at all levels, is probably the
most needed research area,
The formation of a discipline called conservation biology is an encouraging sign of the scientific community’s effort to start breaking
down traditional barriers among disciplines
and in ways of approaching problems. The goal
is to provide principles and tools for maintaining biological diversity, Signs that the new discipline is gaining momentum include establishment of a Center for Conservation Biology at
Stanford University, the creation of a department of conservation biology at Chicago’s Brookfield Zoo, and the development of programs of
study at the University of Florida and at Montana State University. More recently, a professional Society for Conservation Biology with
its own journal, conservation Bioiogy, has been
established.
130 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
As yet, the National Science Foundation and
other research funding organizations have not
recognized the status of conservation biology
as a discipline by according it a separate funding category. Its impact on resource management should increase as it gradually becomes
recognized, encouraged, supported, and broadened to include professional social scientists.
Personnel Development
A major constraint to maintaining diversity
onsite is the shortage of personnel—taxonomists, social scientists, resource managers, and
technicians with adequate training, motivation,
and work experience. These individuals are
needed to plan, manage, and explain the need
to maintain biological diversity to decisionmakers. Training and institutional development
to provide employment opportunities for these
kinds of experts are sorely needed, particularly
in developing countries.
The number of plant taxonomists working in
the world today is estimated at 3,000, for example; but twice as many would probably be
needed for an adequate study of the world’s
flora (12). Moreover, most taxonomists reside
in the temperate zone and only study species
there.
Even if money were available to train new
taxonomists, job opportunities would have to
be provided to attract people to the field. The
number of taxonomic positions in museums,
herbaria, universities, and resource-managing
agencies currently is low and may be falling,
as research funds are directed at more popular disciplines (e.g., molecular biology). It may
be time for the museums and botanic gardens
to explore innovative ways to promote the field
of systematic biology. These institutions could
help by defining systematic biology’s role in the
maintenance of biological diversity as a way
of making the discipline more appealing to potential specialists.
Data To Facilitate Onsite Protection
Decisions on where and how to apply various methods for onsite maintenance of diver-
sity need to be based on accurate data and correct theories on the interactions among
numerous biological and human factors. Abundant data exist, especially for the temperate
zone regions of the world. The data are being
used both to develop and improve theories regarding biological diversity and to make specific decisions regarding resource management. However, use of the existing information
is inefficient when data are not collected into
readily accessible databases at the scale on
which decisionmakers operate.
Thus, a significant opportunity to improve
onsite maintenance of diversity, both within
and outside protected areas, is to support accelerated development of comprehensive databases, which would include, for example,
TNC’S State Natural Heritage Programs and its
international conservation data center program. It could also include development of a
nationwide description and evaluation of all
flora and fauna species in the United States,
possibly under the auspices of TNC.
Large gaps in knowledge of tropical species
and ecosystems constrain the effectiveness of
diversity maintenance efforts in developing
countries. Opportunities include increased development assistance support to build institutions and train scientists capable of accelerating progress in the fundamental sciences of
taxonomy, natural history, and ecology.
Possibly the most severe information deficiencies relate to the poor understanding of
how social, political, and economic factors interact with biological diversity. A great need
exists for social scientists trained and employed
to develop information on how social and economic conditions can be made conducive to
onsite maintenance of biological diversity. Unfortunately, this is a need difficult for biologists
and natural resource managers to address. It
requires new levels of interest and commitment
from social science institutions.
Ch. 5—Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite
●
131
CHAPTER 5
1. Bailey, R.G. (compiler), Description of the Eco-
(Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Region, 1978). In: Crumpacker,
1985.
Bailey, R. G., Pfister, R. D,, and Henderson, J. A.,
“Nature of Land and Resource Classification—A
Review,” ]ourna] of Forestry 76(10):650-655,
regions of the United States
2.
1978,
3.
4.
5,
6.
7.
8.
Belovsky, G., “Extinction Models and Mammalian Persistence, ” Viable Populations for
Conservation, M. Soul: (cd.] (Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press, forthcoming).
Betz, R., Northeastern Illinois University, personal communications, 1985. In: Jordan, et al.,
1986.
Bonner, F., U.S. Forest Service, Starkville, MS,
letter to OTA, May 1986.
Brown, J. H., and Kodric-Brown, A., “Turnover
Rates in Insular Biogeography: Effect of Immigration on Extinction, ” Ecology 58:445-449,
1977, In: Soul~ and Simberloff, 1986.
Brush, S., International Agricultural Development Program, University of California, Davis,
letter to OTA, June 1986.
Butcher, G. S., Niering, W. A., Barry, W, J., and
Goodwin, R. H., “Equilibrium Biogeography and
the Size of Nature Reserves: An Avian Case
Study,” Oeco]ogia (Berl.) 49:29-37, 1981. I n :
NOSS,
9.
(Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1984).
ln: Shaffer, 1985.
16. Diamond, J. M., “The Island Dilemma: Lessons
of Modern Biogeographic Studies for the Design
of Natural Reserves, ” Biological Conservation
7:129-146, 1975. In: Shaffer, 1985.
17, Eidsvik, H., Director of Parks, Canada, personal
communications, June 1986.
18, Erwin, T, L., “Tropical Forests: Their Richness
in Coleoptera and Other Arthropod Species, ”
Co]eopterists’ Bulletin 36(1):74-75, 1982.
19, Eyre, F.H. (cd.), Forest Cover Types of the
20,
21,
22,
23,
24.
1983.
Centro International de Mejoramiento de Mafz
y Trigo (CIMMYT), “Conservation of the Wild
Relatives of Maize, ” CIMMYT
25,
Research High-
(El Batan, Mexico: 1986).
10. Collins, M., “International Inventory and Monitoring for the Maintenance of Biological Diversity, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.
11. Conservation Foundation, National Parks for a
lights, 1985
New Generation: Visions, Realities, Prospects
12.
13.
14,
15.
(Washington, DC: Conservation Foundation,
1985).
Crosby, M., and Raven, P., “Diversity and Distribution of Wild Plants, ” OTA commissioned
paper, 1985.
Crumpacker, D. W., “Status and Trends of the
U.S. Natural Ecosystems, ” OTA commissioned
paper, 1985.
Dasmann, R., Wildlife Biology (New York: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1964).
Diamond, J. M., “Normal Extinctions of Isolated
Populations, ” Extinctions, M.H. Nitecki (cd.)
26,
United States and Canada (Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters, 1980).
Fairchild, J., Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT, personal communication, 1985. In: Jordan, et al., 1986.
Feller, W., “Die Grundlagen der Volterraschen
Theorie des Kampfes urns Dasein in Warscheinlichkeistheoretischer Behandlung, ” Acta Biotheoretica 5:11-40, 1939. In: Shaffer, 1985.
Flesness, N., “Status and Trends of Wild Animal Diversity, ” OTA commissioned paper,
1985,
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the
United Nations, Tree Growing by Rural People,
FAO Forestry Paper No. 64 (Rome: 1986).
Frankel, O. H., and Soul~, M, E., Conservation
and Evolution (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge
University Press, 1981).
Franklin, J. A., “Evolutional Change in Small
Populations,” Conservation Biology: An Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective M.E. SOU16 and
B.A. Wilcox (eds.) (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer
Associates, 1980].
Gentry, A. H., “Chapter 8: Endemism in Tropical versus Temperate Plant Communities, ” Conservation Biology, M. Soul& (cd.) (Sunderland,
MA: Sinauer Associates, 1986].
27, Gilbert, F, S,, “The Equilibrium Theory of Island
Biogeography: Fact or Fiction?” Journal of Biogeography 7:209-235, 1980. In: Shaffer, 1985.
28. Ginsburg, L., Slobodkin, L. B., Johnson, K,, and
Bindman, A. G,, “Quasi-extinction Probabilities
as a Measure of Impact on Population Growth, ”
Risk Analysis 2:171-181, 1982. In: Shaffer, 1985.
29. Government of Zambia and IUCN, National
Conservation Strategy for Zambia (Gland, Switzerland: 1985).
30. Gregg, B., U.S. National Park Service, Washington, DC, letter to OTA, Sept. 19, 1986.
132 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
31. Barrington, J,, University of Wisconsin, personal communications, 1985. In: Jordan, et a].,
1986,
32. Harris, L,, The Fragmented Forest (Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press, 1984).
33. Harrison, J., “Status and Trends of Natural Ecosystems Worldwide, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.
34, Hayden, B. P., Ray, G. C., and Dolan, R., “Classification of Coastal and Marine Environments,” Environmental Conservation 11(3):199207, 1984.
35. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, The United Nations
List of National Parks and Protected Areas
(Gland, Switzerland: 1985).
36. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, National Conservation Strategies: A Framework for Sustainable
Development (Gland, Switzerland: 1985).
Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, “Categories, Objectives, and Criteria for Protected Areas, ” Na-
37. International
tional Parks, Conservation, and Development:
The Role of Protected Area in Sustaining Society, Proceedings of the World Congress on Na-
tional Parks, Bali, Indonesia, Oct. 11-22, 1982,
J.A. McNeely and K.R. Miller (eds.) (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1984).
38. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Categories, Objectives, and Criteria for Protected Areas (Merges,
Switzerland: 1978).
39, Janzen, D. H,, “Guanacaste National Park: Tropical Ecological and Cultural Restoration, ” a report to Servico de Parques Nacionales de Costa
Rica from Department of Biology, University of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 1986.
40. Johannes, R. E., and Hatcher, B. G., “Chapter 17:
Shallow Tropical Marine Environments, ” Conservation Biology, M. Soul& and B. Wilcox (eds.)
(Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 1986).
41. Johnston, V. R., “Breeding Birds of the Forest
Edge in East-Central Illinois, ” Condor 49:45-53,
1947. In: Ness, R,, “A Regional Landscape Approach to Maintain Diversity,” Bioscience
33(11):700-706, 1983.
42. Jones, J. O., Espey, Houston & Associates, Inc.,
Austin, TX, personal communications, 1985. In:
Jordan, et al., 1986.
43, Jordan, W., Peters, R,, and Allen, E., “Ecological Restoration as a Strategy for Conserving Biodiversity,” OTA commissioned paper, 1986.
44. Kollar, S. A., Jr., Hartford Community College,
Bel Air, MD, personal communication, 1985. In:
Jordan, et al,, 1986.
45. Lande, R,, and Barrowclough, G. F., “Effective
Population Size, Genetic Variation and Their
Use in Population Management, ” Viable Populations for Conservation, M,E, Soulb (cd.) (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming).
46, Levins, R., “Extinction,” Some Mathematical
Questions in Biology, Lectures of Mathematics
in the Life Sciences, vol. 2, M. Gerstenhaber (cd.)
(Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, 1970). Jn: Shaffer, 1985.
47. Love joy, T. E., Bierregaard, R. O., Jr., Rankin,
J, M., and Schubert, H. O. R., “Ecological Dynamics of Forest Fragments, ” Tropical Rain
Forests: Ecology and Management, S.L. Sutton,
T,(;. Whitman, and A.C. Chadwick (eds.) (Oxford, England: Blackwell Scientific Publications,
1983). In: Shaffer, 1985.
48. Love joy, T. E., Rankin, J. M., Bierregaard, R. O.,
Jr., Brown, K. S., Jr., Emmons, L. H., and Van der
Voort, M. E,, “Ecosystem Decay of Amazon Forest Remnants, ” Extinctions, M.H. Nitecki (cd.)
(Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1984).
In: Shaffer, 1985,
49. Love joy, T. E,, and Oren, D. C., “The Minimum
Critical Size of Ecosystems, ” Forest IsZand Dynamics in Man-Dominated Landscapes, R.L.
Burgess and D.M. Sharp (eds.) (New York:
Springer-Verlag, 1981). In: Shaffer, 1985.
50. Lyman, T. M., “Progress and Planning for Germplasm Conservation of Major Food Crops,”
Plant Genetics Resources Newsletter 60:3-19,
1984.
of Marine/
Coastal Ecosystems,” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.
52. MacArthur, R. H., and Wilson, E. O., The The-
51. Lynch, M. and Rey, C., “Diversity
ory of Island Biogeography (Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1967).
53. Margules, C., Higgs, A. J., and Rafe, R. W,, “Modern Biogeographic Theory: Are There Any Lessons for Nature Reserve Design?” Biological
Conservation 24:115-128, 1982.
54. Matthiae, P., Assistant Coordinator of Natural
Areas, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, personal communication, 1985. In: Jordan, et al., 1986.
55. McMahan, J. A., Nothing Succeeds Like Succession: Ecology and the Human Lot, 67th Faculty
Honor Lecture (Logan, UT: Utah State University Press, 1983). In: Jordan, et al., 1986.
56. Morrison, D. G., Use of Prairie Vegetation on
Ch. 5—Maintaining Biological Diversity Onsite “ 133
Disturbed Sites, Transportation Research Record 822 Landscape and Environmental Design
(Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1981).
57. Myers, N., “Causes of Loss of Biological Diversity, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.
58. Nabhan, G. P., “Native Crop Diversity in Aridoamerica: Conservation of Regional Gene Pools, ”
59.
Economic Botany 39:387-399, 1985.
National Research Council, Surface Mining:
Soil, Coal, and Society (Washington, DC: Na-
60.
tional Academy Press, 1981).
Organization of American States (OAS), OAS
General Secretariat, Integrated Regional Devel-
opment Planning: Guidelines and Case Studies
From OAS Experience (Washington, DC: 1984).
61. Peine, J., Proceedings of Conference on the
Management of Biosphere Reserves, Nov. 2729, 1984, Great Smoky Mountains National
Park, Gatlinburg, TN.
62. Prescott-Allen, R., “National Conservation Strategies and Biological Diversity, ” a report to the
International Union for the Conservation of Na-
63,
ture and Natural Resources, Conservation for
Development Center, draft, February 1986.
Prescott-Allen, R., and Prescott-Allen, C., “Park
Your Genes: Protected Areas as In-Situ Genebanks for the Maintenance of Wild Genetic Re-
sources, ” National Parks, Conservation, and De~~elopmen t: The Role of Protected Areas in
Sustaining Societ~r, Proceedings of the World
Congress on National Parks, Bali, Indonesia,
Oct. 11-22, 1982, J.A. McNeely and K.R. Miller
(eds.) (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution
Press, 1984).
64 Ricklefs, R. E., Naveh, Z., and Turner, R. E.,
“Conservation of Ecological Processes, ” The
Design and Conservation of Nature Reserves, ”
Biological Conservation (forthcoming).
70. Schonewald-Cox, C. M., Chambers, S. M., MacBryde, B., and Thomas, W. L., Genetics and Conservation: A Reference for Managing Wildlife
Animal and Plant Populations (Menlo Park, CA:
Benjamin Cummings Co., 1983).
Shaffer, M., “The Minimum Viable Population
Problem” Viable Populations for Conservation,
M. SOU16 (cd.) (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge
University Press, forthcoming).
72. Shaffer, M., “Assessment of Application of Species Viability Theories, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985,
73, Shaffer, M., “Determining Minimum Viable
Population Sizes for the Grizzly Bear, ” Inter71
national Conference on Bear Research and Management 5:1 33-139, 1983.
74
1981.
Shugart, H., “Planning and Management Techniques for Natural System s,” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.
76 Simberloff, D., “Biogeography: The Unification
and Maturation of a Science, ’ Perspectives in
Ornithology, A.H. Brash and G.A. Clark, Jr.
(eds.) (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Uni~ersity
Press, 1983). In: Shaffer, 1985.
77 Simon, J., and Wildavsky, A., “On Species Loss,
the Absence of Data, and Risks to Humanity, ”
The Resourceful Earth J. Simon and H. Khan
(eds.) (New York: Basil Blackwell Inc., 1984).
78, Soul~, M, E., and Simberloff, D,, “What Do
Genetics and Ecology Tell Us About the Design
of Nature Reserves?’ Biological Conser\’ation
75
35:19-40, 1986.
Environmentalist 4(8), 1984.
65. Salm, R. V., Marine and Coastal Protected Areas:
A Guide for Planners and Managers (Gland,
79
Switzerland: International Union for the Conser~’ation of Nature and Natural Resources,
80
Saunier, R., “Environment and Development
A Future Together?” Development Forum
81.
11 (8), 1983.
Saunier, R., and Meganck, R., “Compatibility
of Development and the In-Situ Maintenance of
Biological Diversity in Developing Countries, ”
OTA commissioned paper, 1985.
68. Schlosser, S., “The Use of Nature Reserves for
in Situ Conser\’ation, ” Plant Genetic Rt;SOUIT;CS
67,
82
83
,%reJ%’slctter 61 ;23-24, 1 g85.
69.
Schonewald-Cox, C. M., and 13ayless, J. W., “The
Boundary Approach: A Geographic Analysis of
SOU16, M. E., and Wilcox, B. A., Conservation Biology: An Ecological-E\ ’olutionary Perspectit’e
1984].
66.
Shaffer, M., “Minimum Population Sizes for
Species Conservation, ” Bioscience 31:1 31-134,
84
(Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 1980).
Stenseth, N, C., “Where Have All the Species
Gone? on the Nature of Extinction arid the Red
Queen Hypothesis,” Oikos 33:196-227, 1979. In:
Shaffer, 1985,
Synge, H. “Status and Trends of Wild Plants, ”
OTA commissioned paper, 1985.
Thorsell, J. W,, “The Role of Protected Areas in
Maintaining Biological Diversity in Tropical Developing Countries, ” OTA commissioned paper,
1985.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Technologies To Sustain Tropical Forest
Resources, OTA-F214 (Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office, March, 1984).
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
134 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
An Annotated Bibliography of Surface-Mined
Area Reclamation Research (Washington, DC:
1985),
85. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests: The Blue
Mountains of Oregon and Washington, USDA
Pub. No. 5531979 (Washington, DC: 1979).
86. U.S. Department of Commerce, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Sanctuary Program: Program Development PZan (Washington, DC: 1982).
87. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, “Selkirk Mountain Caribou Management Plan” (Washington, DC: 1985).
88. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management, “Burro Creek Riparian Management Plan” (Washington, DC: May 1983).
89. Wilcove, D. S., McLellan, C. H., and Dobson,
A. P., “Chapter 11: Habitat Fragmentation in the
Temperate Zone,” Conservation Biology, M .
Soule (cd.) (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 1986).
90. Wilcox, B. A., “Insular Ecology and Conservation,” Conservation Biology: An EvolutionaryEcological Perspective, M,E. Soul& and B.A.
Wilcox (eds.) (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 1980).
91. Wright, R, M., Houseal, B., and De Leon, C.,
“Kuna Yala: Indigenous Biosphere Reserves in
the Making?” Parks 10(3):25-27, 1984.
.
Chapter 6
Maintaining
Animal Diversity
Offsite
CONTENTS
Page
Highlights . . . . **. **** .*. .*. .*** .*** .*** . *e****....*...*****..*****. 137
overview
$
* .
. . ****...**...**.****************** 137
Objectives of Offsite Maintenance Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......137
Breeding Programs v. Long-Term Cryogenic Storage . .................138
Sampling Strategies .*** **. ****, *.** **** .*. ***. ... *.** *.** .. *******0. 142
Identification of Candidates for Conservation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..142
Preservation and Collection Considerations * * , , * , . * . . * * * * . * * * , * , * * * . 144
The Movement of Germplasm—I)isease and Quarantine Issues . ..........145
Maintenance Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Storage Technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...148
Breeding Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..149
Development and Utilization Technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......156
Needs and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........157
Wild Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................157
Domestic Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............159
Chapter preferences . . ..*.**. *****,* ..*****. .****** *..***. .*.*.. 163
● ● ● ● ● ● ●
● ● ● ● ● ●
● ● ● ● ● ● ●
●
●
●
●
Tables
Page
Table No.
6-1. General Guidelines for Intervention To Conserve
Natural Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..............143
6-2. Criteria for Classifying Domestic Breedsas Endangered .***.*. . . * . * 143
6-3. Captive Animals Required for a Fixed Proportion of Genetic Diversity
Over a Number of Generations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...149
6-4. Successful Artificial Insemination in Nondomestic Mammals . . . . . . . ..154
●
Figures
Page
Figure No.
6-1. Transcontinental Embryo Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..154
6-2. Embryo Transfer Flowchart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..155
Boxes
Page
BoxNo.
6-A. Breeds .*$*?** ......00 ,**.*,. ..**?*. . . . . . . . . ,.,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 8
6-B. Replacement and Genetic Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .’. . . . . . . . .139
6-C. Genetic Drift and Inbreeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....150
6-D. Embryo Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................153
6-E. Captive Breeding and Przewalski’s Horse . . . . . . . . . . . ...............156
●
●
—
Chapter 6
Maintaining Animal Diversity Offsite
Offsite maintenance of animal diversity includes selective breeding of wild
or domestic species and safeguarding genetic diversity through cryopreservation. For wild animals, the programs reinforce rather than replace efforts to
maintain diversity onsite. For domestic animals, programs try to maximize
usefulness of the animals while preserving their ability to adapt to changing
human needs.
Cryogenic storage could make a considerable contribution to the maintenance
of animal diversity. Properly frozen and maintained, sperm and embryos have
an expected shelf-life of hundreds of years. Although initial collection and preservation costs are relatively high, subsequent storage costs and space requirements are low.
The number of individual animals required to start a captive population or
a cryogenic store depends on a host of factors. Retaining 99 percent of a source
population’s genetic diversity for 1,000 generations could require up to 50,000
animals, far too many to be practical under captive management. At a minimum, however, several hundred individual animals are required for captive
breeding programs.
Breeding programs require the international transfer of animals, which risks
spreading pests and diseases. For most wild species, regulatory controls are
virtually nonexistent. Stringent controls are in place, however, for importing
domestic animals. Advances in diagnostic procedures and germplasm transfer technologies are expected to’ facilitate the international movement of animals.
No organized program exists, either in the United States or Internationally,
to sam-pie, evaluate maintain, and use available sources of animal germplasrn.
Such a program is needed, in addition to programs to understand the reproductive processes of wild animals, to develop local expertise in reproductive
biology and quantitative genetics, and to increase the number of captive maintenance and breeding facilities.
OVERVIEW
Objectives Offsite
Maintenance Efforts
Offsite maintenance of animal diversity is defined as propagation or preservation of animals
outside their natural habitat. The programs involve control by humans of the animals chosen to constitute a population and of the mating choices made within that population. The
extent of control can vary considerably, but the
decision to remove individual animals from a
natural habitat implies a major increase in human involvement in propagation of a population.
Captive maintenance of wild species has become progressively more important as increasing numbers of species are threatened or en137
138 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
dangered in their natural habitats. These
programs can be considered holding actions
designed to reinforce rather than replace wild
populations. If a natural population is decimated or lost, captive maintenance programs
provide a reservoir of individuals to allow reintroduction.
The genetic diversity of the original population must not be lost or seriously reduced during captive maintenance if animals are expected to be able to readapt to life in the wild.
Likewise, genetic changes that may be induced
during captive maintenance must be minimized. Reciprocal transfers of individuals between wild and captive populations can help
reduce genetic pressures. Such exchanges,
however, involve the capture of wild animals,
and they risk the accidental death of some of
them. Therefore, risks should be evaluated carefully before beginning a program of genetic exchanges between wild and captive populations.
For domestic species, all populations are by
definition maintained offsite. Most of these animals have existed in association with humans
for centuries, and their current genetic diversity is a reflection of this long interaction. Their
genes have been manipulated through generations of selective breeding to meet the diverse
needs of humans, and this manipulation has
led to a wealth of specialized breeds (boxes 6A and 6-B). Some wild progenitors of domestic species still differ so much from domestic
populations that they exist as a reservoir of
genetic diversity, but these natural populations
are unlikely to contribute much to current commercial stocks through traditional breeding
methods.
The aim of programs to maintain genetic
diversity in livestock differs somewhat from
that for wild animals. In domestic populations,
the challenge is to maximize current utility and
preserve sufficient diversity to ensure livestock’s continued adaptability to changing—
and often unforeseen—human needs. In fact,
efforts to raise current rates of food production may constitute the greatest threat to future
flexibility by concentrating unduly on shortterm production goals with attendant losses in
genetic diversity that may be important to future generations.
Brooding Programs v. Long-Term
Cryogonic Storage
Using captive breeding programs to retain
a considerable proportion of the genetic diversity of endangered species or rare breeds for
Ch. 6—Maintaining Animal Diversity Offsite
●
139
Box MI.”mpkwnfa tad Gaasatk ~
*
Tmditiondly, breed rephwxnent has pmceedd OXl an evoktionmytime male, with fp’adud *e$
inbreed composition and provision for ~ca of % Wdth Of kd -tkma. WXitiy, however, the pace of breed repiacemen * has aixmkatad, with the of multinational b r e e d i n g
c o m p a n i e s in p o u l t r y a n d s w i n e , t h e u s e of a r t i f i c i a l and intensifiwi sire
selection i n dairy c a t t l e , a n d e n h a n c e d for Qfgempiasm throughout the
world. Aiso, greater standardization of production, marketing, and remrding procedures for j=dtry,
swim, and dairy cattle in industrial Gantries be increasingly prmnotad repkement of local breeds.
In domestic species, the greatest threat to genetic diversity involves extensive and sometimes
indiscriminate crossing of indigenous @ocks in developing countries with breeds from North America and Western Europe [3). This crossing stmna from needs to !nct~se world food production and
f r o m a b e l i e f t h a t t h i s g o a l i s b e s t met using poesible genetic m e r i t f o r i n d i v i d ual traits (such as milk or egg production). But breeds developed in @n~te-zone industrial countries are often not suited to the more restrictive r@Kkmai, m~mt, and disease conditions of
developing countries and may be less efficiant than indigenous #ocka in wing available resources.
Only recently has the need for comprehaneive evaluation td!timtotal of imported breeds
begun to be recognized in developing countries. Unf@tun@ely, serious dilution of original breeds
may have already occurred. ~us, it is not the process of breed repkmnmt mr se ~at iS a problem
but the rate of replacement and the dangw that useful breeds maybe discarded before they can be
fairly evaluated.
Regional strains of established breeds are especiallyvuhmrablato lose through intercrossing with
more popuIar strains. Extensive use of Hokdnbuils fkorn North Amwica in European Friesian populations threatens serioua dilutiori of the gewtic material of theae strains. The percentage of Holstein
genes in young Friesian bulls entering European artificial inaemin@ion programs in 1982 ranged
from 8 percent in Ireland to 91 percent in Switzerland and weqpl 54 percent for 10 European
countries (4).
Genetic diversity can sometimes be reduced in commercial stocks even if population numbers
remain large. These losses can occur when selection is intense and control of breeding stock is concentrated in a few large breeding farms (as in the commercial pouhry industries] or when artificial
insemination allows extensive use of a few seiected sires throughout the population (as in the dairy
industry). In both cases, the resuk is increased genetic uniformity within the stock despite the large
numbers. Several studies (3,25) have concluded that important kwms may ba occurring in commercial poultry breeds. Comparable losses have apparently not yet happened in dairy Mttie populations.
No imminent losses of genetic diversity within major comnwrcial tweeds are foreseen for mvine, sheep,
goats, or beef cattle. Several populations of chickens are currently being maintained without selection
and at dficient population sizes to substantially retard losses in genetic diversity (42). And some
artificial insemina tion organizations retain semen from bulls that have been removed from service.
However, these programs do not represent industry or public policy, and parallel programs do not
exist for other domestic species.
The Ioss of endangered species and ram breeds is of particubw ooncarn in light of likely fiture
advances in molecular biology and geneticti. The abiiity @ mtfraet dedrabla genes from different qMcies or less productive_ ad inM@ th~~ hto &mastic animals could have important implica“ al ao~ Unfortunately, knowitions for designing superior mbals fb~ a~ifk amdromrmnt
e d g e o f t h e @metic material of_ av!$d @ @ rudinwrttary. For i n s t a n c e , i t i s
a r e controlled b y m a n y o r
u n c l e a r i f a d a p t i v e f&t@l’s - **“
a few
g - , @ = Wd# m - to ~.. aflocal braeda
and
endangered _. - +
.
.,
140 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
a substantial period of time requires relatively
large numbers of animals. Under the most
favorable assumptions, maintenance of 90 to
95 percent of the genetic diversity within a population for 100 to 200 generations would require
a captive population of at least several hundred
individuals sampled from throughout the range
of the species (15,27).
Until relatively recently, zoos have not been
concerned with keeping representative levels
of genetic diversity within their exhibition
stock. Problems in fertility and juvenile survival
that often accompany exhaustion of genetic
diversity were simply accommodated by obtaining new specimens from the wild. As this became difficult, and in some cases impossible,
zoos began to reevaluate their role. The result
has been establishment of programs to maintain pedigree information on zoo animals
through the International Species Inventory
System (ISIS) and to facilitate transfer of individuals among zoos. These efforts help maintain genetic diversity, but existing zoos can support at most 1,000 kinds of terrestrial
vertebrates at a minimum population of 250 (2),
whereas an estimated 1,500 to 2,000 kinds will
be in danger of extinction by the year 2050 (43).
The magnitude of the problem will thus outrun currently available facilities for captive
breeding.
Recent advances in reproductive biology and
cryopreservation may facilitate efforts to preserve genetic diversity. Cryopreservation refers
to storage below – 1300 C: water is absent,
molecular kinetic energy is low, and diffusion
is virtually nil. Thus, storage potential is expected to be extremely long. Storage in liquid
nitrogen ( — 1960 C) or in the vapor above it (ea.
– 1500 C) is a useful technique: Liquid nitrogen is relatively inexpensive, inert, and safer
than comparable refrigerants (e.g., liquid hydrogen, liquid oxygen, or freon).
Storage and eventual production of live offspring from frozen semen or embryos have become common for cattle, sheep, goat, buffalo,
and horse. The semen of pigs can also be frozen. In 1982, an estimated 10.5 million cattle
were produced through artificial insemination
with frozen semen. Similarly, bovine embryo
Photo credit. American Breeders Serwce
This calf, born in 1984, was conceived with
had been frozen for 30 years.
semen that
transfer has become commercially viable and
increasingly involves the use of frozen embryos.
Commercial use of frozen semen and embryos
is less common in other livestock species, but
acceptable results can be achieved. Frozen semen is also regularly used with poultry and with
some species of fish (18).
Cryopreservation of sperm and embryos of
wild species has been much more limited. To
date, blackbuck, giant panda, fox, wolf, chimpanzee, and gorilla have been produced from
frozen semen (7,9,38); baboon (37) and eland
(8), as well as mice, rats, and rabbits, have been
produced from frozen embryos. Procedures differ among species, but in theory, semen and
embryos from a range of mammalian species
can now be successfully frozen.
The contribution of cryopreservation to the
maintenance of animal diversity could be
tremendous. Properly frozen and maintained,
sperm and embryos have an expected shelf-life
of hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Although initial collection and preservation costs
may be relatively high, subsequent storage costs
and space requirements are low, allowing for
long-term maintenance of large numbers of individuals and gametes.
These individuals represent a frozen snapshot of the population at the time of collection.
If the initial sampling of individuals is done
Ch. 6—Maintaining Animal Diversity Offsite
I
●
141
.
of San
The frozen zoo: Cryogenic storage of cell strains, gametes, and embryos is being undertaken
as part of the conservation activities of zoos.
properly, the procedures should allow regeneration of the original population without the
genetic changes inherent in the maintenance
of captive breeding populations.
2,000 years of normal storage without apparent ill effects (16). Normal progeny were
produced. Thus, risks of genetic damage from
background radiation appear negligible.
The long-term genetic stability of frozen em-
Just as captive breeding programs reinforce
rather than replace natural populations, cryopreservation efforts reinforce rather than replace captive breeding programs. In wild species, females must still be available to gestate
frozen embryos or to provide female gametes
in matings involving frozen semen. In domestic species, breeding populations selected for
biologically or economically important traits
may still be required, but cryogenic storage of
individuals from the original population provides a valuable measure of insurance. Periodic
bryos and sperm is a matter of some concern.
Freezing and thawing does not appear to increase the mutation rate in these tissues, but
long-term exposure to low levels of radiation
could be a problem, especially because DNA
repair mechanisms would be inoperative at
– 1960 C (l). Mouse embryos and semen have
been kept frozen for at most 10 and 30 years,
respectively. However, frozen mouse embryos
also have been exposed to augmented levels of
radiation equivalent to that experienced in
142 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
sampling and preservation of gametes or embryos from rare breeds allow a repository of
genetic diversity to be maintained.
Two caveats must be kept in mind regarding
the role of cryopreservation of gametes and embryos. First, considerable development work
is required to extend the techniques to cover
the full range of endangered populations. For
wild animals, reliable procedures for collecting, freezing, and using semen and embryos
have to be developed further and validated for
each species or group of species to ensure that
sufficient levels of genetic diversity can be
regenerated from the frozen store. Preservation
technologies for embryos are well developed
only in certain domestic mammals. Similar
techniques are needed for birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and invertebrates.
Second, cryopreservation of gametes and embryos should not bean llth-hour effort to protect seriously endangered species. Restraining
wild animals to collect semen or embryos is
risky. Some animals die, which entails an unacceptable risk if the species is already rare.
Therefore, research and the collection of gametes
and embryos from many sources should begin
before the populations become endangered.
SAMPLING STRATEGIES
Efficient programs for offsite maintenance
of animal genetic diversity require a mechanism for monitoring existing populations—to
identify when and if intervention is required—
and procedures for sampling threatened populations in a way that ensures desired levels
of genetic diversity within the conserved population.
Identification of Candidates
for Conservation
Three criteria are generally considered when
selecting wild species for captive propagation
or preservation (35):
10 Endangerment in the Wild: Information on
the status of wild animals is probably best
obtained from the Species Conservation
Monitoring Unit (SCMU) of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources at Cambridge
University in England. Funding constraints tend to limit the scope and timeliness of SCMU information, however. Local and regional organizations may also
provide useful information, but their effectiveness varies widely.
2. Feasibility in captivity: Lack of facilities
and expertise may preclude captive breeding or cryogenic storage of some species.
The blue whale is an example of a species
that cannot be maintained in captivity.
3. Uniqueness: Given limited facilities for
captive propagation, programs must try to
represent as much available taxonomic
diversity as possible. Thus, endangered
species that are the only representative of
their genus, family, or order would receive
high priority.
Subspecies present a special problem. Most
wild species have several distinct forms or
races, analogous to the breeds found in domestic animals. These subspecies usually cannot
all be maintained as discrete breeding populations. Instead, captive propagation programs
need to concentrate on one or two representative subspecies or amalgamate several of them
into a single interbreeding population. Cryogenic preservation of semen or embryos would
facilitate conservation of these identifiable subspecies.
Table 6-1 provides some general guidelines
for monitoring and intervention to conserve a
natural population. Such an approach has three
important advantages:
1, a sample of the source population can be
obtained before substantial loss of genetic
diversity has occurred;
2, conflict over capture and restraint of rare
—
Ch. 6—Maintaining Animal Diversity Offsite
Table 6-1 .—General Guidelines for intervention
To Conserve Natural Populations
Likelihood
of extinction
Possible
Probable
Number of
animals
fewer than
100,000
fewer than
10,000
fewer than
1,000
Certain
Imminent
fewer than
500
sOIJRcE D R Netter and T J Foose,
Domestic and Wild Animal
1985
Action
At least, serious surveillance
of status and trends should
be initiated
Well-managed captive propagation programs should be
establ i shed; reproductive
technology research should
be vigorously conducted;
and germinal tissues should
be collected for storage
while there are an adequate
number of animals to use as
founders, subjects, and
donors
Off site programs should be
intensified while onsite efforts are fortified for a “last
stand”; off site programs are
imperative
Off site programs become as
important as onsite efforts
“Concepts and Strategies To Maintain
Germ Plasm,” OTA commissioned paper,
individuals, e.g., the California condor, can
be avoided by taking action before extinction is imminent; and
3, if techniques for semen and embryo preservation are not well developed, material
can be made available for experimentation,
For the rare breed of a domestic species, identifying candidates for conservation involves
assessment of uniqueness, potential economic
contribution, and degree of endangerment,
Monitoring the status of domestic animal
breeds used for food and fiber production is
somewhat coordinated by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, un-
●
143
der the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme, Regional efforts are
directed by the European Association for Animal Production, the Society for the Advancement of Breeding Researchers in Asia and
Oceania, the InterAfrican Bureau for Animal
Resources, the International Livestock Centre
for Africa, and the Asociacion Latinoamericana
de Production Animal (12). Comparable efforts
in North America have been less comprehensive and limited to private organizations such
as the American Minor Breeds Conservancy.
At least 700 unique strains of cattle, sheep,
pigs, and horses have been identified in Europe alone, and 241 of these are considered endangered, under the criteria detailed in table
6-2 (30). public support for maintenance of all
these breeds is not feasible, and choices will
have to be made. Two considerations have been
suggested for choosing among competing domestic breeds (39):
1. the breed exists as a closed population, and
a similar population does not exist elsewhere; or
2. the breed exhibits a specific genetic value,
such as superiority in some production
trait, the existence of a major gene (i.e., a
gene with a known effect on some physiological characteristic), or the expression of
a unique characteristic of potential importance.
In the selection of threatened breeds, characterization and evaluation are critical first steps
(35), Ideally, breeds would be assessed in their
native environments and would be evaluated
as both pure breeds and as crosses with other
indigenous and improved breeds. This evalua-
Table 6-2.—Criteria for Classifying Domestic Breeds as Endangered
Number of active femalesa
Species
Number of active males
Cattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
fewer than 20
Sheep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
fewer than 20
Goats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
fewer than 20
Pigs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
fewer than 20
aThe risks associated with a decreasing population were deemed
to
Stable
fewer
fewer
fewer
fewer
population
than 1,000
than 500
than 500
than 200
Decreasing population
1,000
500
500
200
to 5,000
to 1,000
to 1,000
to 500
be greater than those associated with a stable population Therefore, larger numbers were suggested
for a decreasing population
SOURCE Adapted from K Maijala, A V Cherekaez, J,M. Dewllard, Z. Reklewskl, G Rognoni, D,L Simon, and D E. Steane, “Cons ewat!on of Animal Genetic Resources
In Europe, Final Report of an E A A P Working Party, ” Lj~esfOck PfOdUCf/0~ Sc/erIce 11 :3..22, 1984
144 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
tion, often lacking for threatened breeds within
developing countries, can be extremely important. In the absence of a formal evaluation, bibliographic databases may provide some needed
information (12). Following the evaluation,
breeds can be put in one of four categories:
1, Useful under current economic conditions.
Such stocks should be integrated into the
production system in a way that uses their
genetic material in pure lines, crosses, or
selected gene pools. Pure lines should be
maintained with selection for net merit in
production systems that are characteristic of commercial production within the
country of origin or preserved cryogenically if maintenance as a pure line is impossible.
2. Viable under current economic conditions
in relation to other indigenous types, but
inferior (in pure lines or in crosses) to improved types; no obvious biological extreme or major gene. Germplasm preser-
vation in such populations could have two
rationales: preservation of frozen semen
or embryos to prevent total loss of the germplasm and as insurance during a period of
breed replacement with the improved
types, or maintenance as pure lines for
their cultural-historical value at the option
of local governments and producers. A
dual philosophy exists here–a unique population should not be discarded until its
inferiority is documented, but preservation
should not hinder use of improved breeds.
3, Not competitive under current economic
conditions; possesses an extreme phenotype for one or more traits or carries a majorgene. Such breeds should be conserved
cryogenically or as pure lines. Research use
should be encouraged, and selection to intensify the extreme phenotype should be
considered.
4. Not competitive with existing adapted
types; not a biological extreme; no major
genes for production traits. No particular
efforts should be made to conserve such
breeds unless they can be documented as
unique in their genetic origin. Stocks could
move from the second category to this one
as more productive breeds prove themselves.
Preservation and Collection
Considerations
The number of individual animals required
to initiate a captive population or a cryogenic
store will depend on the nature and extent of
the genetic diversity to be maintained, on the
population structure in nature, and on the rate
at which the captive population reproduces.
The Natural Extent of
The Genetic Diversity
Both natural and artificial selection reflect
different fitness or reproductive success for individuals carrying different genes and lead to
changes in the frequencies of those genes in
a population. The diversity of genes in a large,
interbreeding population may be quite extensive, with different individuals possessing a
somewhat different genetic composition. It is
this diversity that enables populations to adapt
to environmental changes. Indeed, preserving
the evolutionary potential of the species requires the maintenance of these possibly useful genes.
The objective in sampling a source population, then, should be to obtain a group that represents the bulk of its genetic diversity. Fewer
animals are required to obtain an adequate initial sample of a population’s diversity than are
required to ensure continued maintenance of
that diversity over time. Thus, 20 to 30 founder
animals should provide an adequate sample of
the genetic diversity in most interbreeding populations (6,43), but much larger subsequent population sizes are required to prevent erosion
of this diversity over time.
In terms of cryopreservation, enough frozen
semen to produce 10 live offspring from each
of 25 sires, which would require 50 to 100 units
of semen per sire, would constitute a good sample of an interbreeding source population (40).
The Council for Agricultural Science and Technology recommends production of 40 to 80 offspring from frozen embryos representing 20 or
Ch. 6—Maintaining Animal Diversity Offsite
more unrelated parents (3). Assuming a pregnancy rate of 30 percent and a subsequent survival rate of 80 percent, 167 to 333 frozen embryos would be required for each breed.
For particularly rare breeds, too few individuals may be available to comply with these recommendations. Although a viable population
can be established with as few as 4 to 10 animals, such a population may differ considerably in genetic composition from the unendangered source population, and it may have an
impaired ability to respond to future changes
in environment. Initiation of a captive population with only a few founders could be justified if a reasonable likelihood exists of obtaining additional individuals from the wild at some
future point.
Population Structure in Nature
Most domestic and wild populations exist as
groups of semi-isolated subpopulations. The extent of this subdivision differs among species
and influences the sampling process in developing a captive population. If the population
is strongly subdivided, genes present in one subpopulation may be absent in others, and sampling must attempt to include individuals from
all major subgroups. According to one calculation, the recommended 20 to 30 founder animals can be decreased by about one-third if the
population exists as a small number (2 to 10)
of very distinct subpopulations, but it should
be increased by about one-third if 50 to 100 distinct subgroups exist (35).
Current assessment of genetic diversity
among subpopulations must be based on biochemical, historical, morphological, and ecological criteria. For genes that produce an iden-
145
tifiable protein molecule, genetic differences
can be identified by the behavior of the proteins on an electrically charged (electrophoretic) gel. Electrophoretic testing procedures
help identify the existence and distribution
of various genes in different subpopulations.
Rapid advances in molecular biology also hold
promise of DNA probes that would directly assess the similarity of DNA molecules among
subpopulations. In domestic animals, however,
differential selection pressures may result in
considerable genetic variation among breeds
with similar evolutionary origins.
Roproductive Rate
Reductions in diversity are cumulative over
generations in small populations, so the losses
associated with a single sampling event are
much lower than those that would accumulate
over time if the population size remained at the
founder number. As soon as a captive breeding population is started, therefore, it should
be expanded to a size consistent with continued
maintenance of the available genetic diversity.
If the reproductive rate is high, maintenance
can be achieved rapidly and with only a few
founders, If the reproductive rate is low, several intervening generations at limited population size will be required to reach eventual
target numbers, and more founders will b e
needed to assure retention of genetic diversity
during this period. Sample sizes for cattle have
been suggested to be twice those required for
pigs, sheep, and goats, for example (3). O n e
advantage of cryogenic preservation would b e
that the period of population expansion can be
deferred until appropriate facilities and habitat are available,
MOVEMENT OF GERMPLASM-DISEASE AND
QUARANTINE ISSUES
For many reasons, effective programs for
conservation of endangered populations will
require extensive international transfer of
germplasm. First, facilities, funds, and institutional stability in developing countries maybe
insufficient to allow endangered species to be
conserved onsite, and animals may have to be
transferred to countries better equipped to support captive breeding programs. Second, with
wild animals, effective maintenance of genetic
146 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
diversity within captive populations will require the international transfer of animals for
breeding purposes. And third, the optimum use
of domestic animal germplasm for food production depends on the international movement of desirable breeds and strains to countries where they may be useful.
International transport of animal germplasm
is accompanied, however, by the risk of introducing and spreading disease agents and vectors, many of which could have an enormous
impact on animal productivity. Indeed, transporting animal germplasm without appropriate safeguards could jeopardize the conservation programs for which the germplasm is
required. Thus, technologies to facilitate germplasm transfer must also limit the risk of disease transmission.
Many infectious diseases are caused by
organisms that do not naturally occur in the
United States, and their introduction could
have serious effects on U.S. animals. Those
causing most concern are foot-and-mouth disease, African swine fever, rinderpest, foreign
bluetongue strains, scrapie, fowl plague, velogenic viscerotropic Newcastle disease, and
Venezuelan equine encephalomyelitis (20). Current programs to exclude entry of pathogenic
organisms vary with the species, disease, and
country of origin.
For most wild species (including nonungulate mammals, most birds, reptiles, amphibians,
and most fish), regulatory controls to prevent
introduction and transfer of hazardous diseases
are virtually nonexistent. Except for inspection
at the time of entry, movement of such individuals is not restricted. In contrast, entry requirements for domesticated livestock species
are quite stringent, especially for those coming from countries that harbor foot-and-mouth
disease, rinderpest, scrapie, or velogenic
viscerotropic Newcastle disease.
All imported domestic animals are subjected
to a variety of diagnostic tests and to varying
periods of quarantine in both the country of
origin and the United States. Greater control
reflects the wide potential dissemination of
these animals throughout the livestock industry. Wild ungulates (hoofed mammals) can carry
diseases transmissible to livestock and have
importation requirements similar to those of
domesticated livestock, but also must remain
in permanent post-entry quarantine in U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)-approved facilities. They can be moved from one USDAapproved zoo to another, however, and their
offspring can be transferred to nonregulated
facilities.
Current efforts to control introduction of foreign diseases center on combined strategies of
blood (serological) testing and quarantine. Some
tests are designed to detect antibodies to specific disease organisms and can thereby identify individuals that have been exposed to the
disease at some time; other tests maybe used
to detect the presence of a specific pathogen.
Periods of quarantine support these procedures
by allowing an incubation period for animals
that may have been infected recently. The tests
are conservative, because individuals that have
been exposed to a disease but no longer retain
the organism still carry antibodies and react
positively. However, the procedures also facilitate identification of asymptomatic carriers of
the various diseases.
Some serological procedures, such as the
complement fixation and the viral neutralization tests, are at times unable to adequately discriminate between pathogenic and nonpathogenie organisms. These limitations have made
it very difficult to obtain negative test results
for some diseases. Recent advances in diagnostic procedures have yielded tests with much
greater accuracy and specificity. Three of the
most important are the following:
1. Indirect Immunofluorescence: This procedure can provide very rapid screening of
samples for a variety of infectious agents.
Although it lacks specificity for some diseases, it greatly facilitates the initial screening process.
2. Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay
(ELISA): The compounds that are produced by a disease organism and that elicit
the production of antibodies by the infected
individual are called antigens, This test
uses carefully selected and purified anti-
.
—
— -.
Ch, 6—Maintaining Animal Diversity Offsite
gens unique to a given strain of an infectious agent to identify circulating antibodies. It is rapid and can be highly specific.
Continued developments in selection and
purification of limited amounts of specific
antigens using recombinant DNA technology may ultimately make ELISA the preferred serologic testing method for most
infectious agents,
3. Complementary DNA Probes: These probes
are derived from cloned DNA or RNA of
specific infectious agents and can confirm
the existence of the infectious agent in tissue samples. The tests would distinguish
between animals carrying only antibodies
and those that actually carry the infectious
agent, The tests would also be of great value
in identifying asymptomatic carriers of infectious agents that infect circulating white
blood cells without eliciting antibody formation.
In addition to movement of entire animals,
increased interest in the international transfer
of semen and embryos has produced both opportunities and concerns about disease control.
For semen, the risk of disease transmission is
usually equated to that associated with the male
that produced the semen. When semen is being moved, it undergoes the same tests the
donor would undergo if he were being moved.
In addition, samples of the semen are usually
subjected to various diagnostic tests (44,45),
The risk via either fresh or frozen embryos
is less clear, In many cases, infectious agents
are attached to the surface of the embryo or
found in the associated uterine fluids. Although
standard methods of embryo-washing free the
embryo of most such organisms (19), it does not
remove all of them (e. g., African swine fever)
(1 1). Research is thus needed on the feasibility
of’ purging embryos of undesirable disease
agents. Even if the disease organism cannot be
disassociated from the embryo, the contaminated germplasm may be rendered noninfectious by highly specific monoclinal antibodies, new antiviral agents, chemical detergents,
or immunization of surrogate mothers.
To date, the suitability of embryos for international movement has been equated to the
●
147
suitability of both parents for such movement,
But considerable interest exists in developing
procedures that would allow the status of the
embryo to be evaluated independently. Such
an assessment is likely to become feasible in
the future. Indeed, transfer of embryos of wild
and domestic animals may ultimately provide
the safest means of exchanging germplasm,
Advances in diagnostic procedures and transfer technology should facilitate the international movement of germplasm. For domestic
species and wild ungulates, these developments
should make foreign breeds more accessible
without increasing the risk of introducing disease. Improved serological testing may allow
relaxation of the permanent post-entry quarantine now imposed on wild ungulates. For unregulated species, a mechanism for monitoring disease status is needed and should be
facilitated by new technologies. These efforts
will be particularly important as captive breeding programs enlarge, thereby increasing contact between exotic and indigenous species.
Returning individuals from zoos to the wild will
also place a premium on ensuring the health
status of released individuals.
For improved diagnostic and transfer technologies to be most effective, they must be applied both in the united States and in the countries of origin, Currently, USDA-approved
quarantine facilities do not exist in Asia and
have only recently been developed in Latin
America. To set up such facilities and equip
them requires capital inputs—costs that are
likely to be borne largely by industrial countries. This approach is reasonable in terms of
the ultimate benefits that are expected from
global maintenance of animal diversity. The
costs of importing animals and semen are currently absorbed by the U.S. importer. Yet this
approach ignores societal benefits that accrue
from access to foreign domestic animal germplasm and from maintenance of animal diversity as a whole, which argue for a greater U.S.
Government role. If widespread maintenance
of genetic diversity is the goal, then increased
public support for importation, conservation,
and use of foreign germplasm is essential.
148 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
Storage TechnoIogies
Cryogenic storage of gametes and embryos
introduces a new level of complexity to the procedures already discussed, but it also holds the
promise of greatly facilitating conservation of
genetic diversity. For both semen and embryos,
a critical element for cryopreservation involves
development of media to protect cells when
they are frozen in liquid nitrogen at – 196° C.
Likewise, procedures must be developed to regulate the rate of freezing and thawing of this
material in a way that will maintain the integrity
of the cells.
.
The ability to freeze semen successfully resulted from the accidental discovery in 1949
of the cryoprotective action of glycerol. To date,
semen has been frozen from at least 200 different species, but little has actually been thawed
and tested, Commercial use of artificial insemination with frozen semen is a reality today only
for domestic species. Current media for freezing of semen usually include buffering agents,
a cryoprotectant such as glycerol, antibiotics,
and either egg yolk or milk. Many variations
of these media exist, and a somewhat different
mix usually must be developed for different
species.
The first successful freezing of mammalian
embryos with a subsequent live birth was reported in 1972 with mice (50,51). Since then,
embryos of 10 mammalian species have been
successfully frozen, and the procedure has become routine with the mouse, cow, and rabbit.
As with semen, a variety of freezing media and
of freezing and thawing procedures are available and are being evaluated. Rapid increases
in efficiency have occurred in the bovine embryo transfer industry, and frozen embryos can
now be transferred in a manner analogous to
artificial insemination. As in the freezing of semen, specific procedures and media appear to
be required for each species. Yet the procedure
in general rests on a firm mechanistic understanding of the processes responsible for cell
injury during freezing, thawing, and dilution.
Previous detailed work with mice and primates
can act as a model for extension of these techniques to other mammals, Thus, given appropriate research, cryogenic storage of embryos
could be developed for a range of species,
credit:
Zoological
Society
In a vial, frozen cells may be stored in suspended
animation and later resuscitated. Technologies for
storing sperm, ova, and embryos are being developed
for domestic and non-domestic species.
Cryopreservation is probably the most promising area of reproduction research today. The
potential exists to hold a well-constructed sample of the genetic diversity of a population in
suspended animation indefinitely, In practice,
frozen semen or embryo storage would probably be used with living populations for a number of reasons: to augment the genetic variation within breeding populations, to allow
periodic comparisons between original and current populations, and to validate the viability
Ch. 6—Maintaining Animal Diversity Offsite
credit
●
149
Breeders Service
Liquid nitrogen storage vessels (above) contain enough frozen bull semen to inseminate 4.5 million cows.
Liquid nitrogen maintains the temperature at –196C C (–320
of the frozen material. Samples from current
populations would likewise periodically be
added to the frozen store to retain new variants produced by natural selection or mutation.
This process would be particularly important
in domestic populations, in which selection
could make preserved individuals economically
obsolete.
Breeding Technologies
The goals of a propagation program can be
defined in terms of how much genetic diversity is to be maintained and for how long. Table 6-3 shows the number of animals required
to ensure retention of various proportions of
genetic diversity for subsequent generations.
Ideally, all of the genetic diversity present in
the source population would be maintained indefinitely in the captive population. Table 6-3
Table 6-3.—Captive Animals Required for a
Fixed Proportion of Genetic Diversity
Over a Number of Generations
Percentage of
Number of generations
aenetic diversitv
100
200
1,000
~aintained ‘
50
50 . . . . . . . . . . 36
72
145
722
174
75 . . . . . . . . . . 87
1,738
348
475
90 . . . . . . . . . .
238
4,746
949
95 . . . . . . . . . . 488
975
1,950
9,748
4,975
49,750
9,950
99 . . . . . . . . . . 2,488
SOURCE Adapted from
Netter and
TO Maintain Domestic and Wild
stoned paper, 1985
Foose, “Concepts and Strategies
Animal Germ Plasm, ” OTA
suggests that this goal (i. e., retention of 99 percent for 1,000 generations) would require up
to 50,000 animals. These numbers are consistent with the guidelines in table 6-1, which suggests natural populations of fewer than 100,000
should be carefully monitored.
150 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
Genetic drift accumulates generation by generation, not year by year, and animal species
differ considerably in this regard (box 6-C). For
example, 200 years covers perhaps 100 generations of chickens but only 7 to 8 generations
of elephants. Yet in most cases, breeding populations should not experience inbreeding rates
in excess of 1 percent per generation; to meet
this constraint, at least 50 breeding individuals
per generation are required.
Manipulation of the breeding structure of a
population can have a significant impact on its
genetic characteristics. For example, an appropriate level of subdivision of a population can
retard the overall rate of genetic loss in the population as a whole: Subdivision increases the
rate of loss within each subgroup, but the specific genes that are lost through random drift
vary among subpopulations. And the number
of genes that can be maintained within the subdivided population will exceed the number that
could be maintained in a random-mating population of comparable size. In practice, the minimum size of the subpopulation will depend on
the tolerance of the species to the inbreeding
rates. Still, some degree of subdivision should
be practiced, and the movement of individuals
among subpopulations should be fewer than
one per generation unless effects of inbreeding become evident. Subdivision also protects
the population against disease outbreaks or
other disasters that might annihilate any one
subpopulation.
The loss of genes from a captive population
can also be retarded by controlling mating. In
contrast to selection, which presupposes a
Ch. 6—Maintaining Animal Diversity Offsite
differential contribution of different individuals to the next generation, programs that attempt to equalize the contribution of each individual can greatly lower initial rates of genetic
loss (21). Likewise, if pedigrees of available individuals are known, matings can be planned
in an attempt to equalize the contribution of
different lineages. This approach has been used
to stabilize founder contributions in a captive
population of Speke’s gazelle (46). Thus, efforts
to record and publish pedigrees of individuals
in endangered species (such as the records of
ISIS) assume great importance.
For domesticated animals, several population
structures and mating systems can be used in
conservation programs that are generally not
appropriate for wild animals. In many domestic species, the large number of existing breeds
(30) precludes conservation of all endangered
breeds as pure breeds. One possibility in such
cases is to preserve a single breed representative of a group of similar breeds. A better strategy, however, may be to amalgamate into a gene
pool individuals from related breeds or from
several breeds that excel in a certain characteristic.
Gene-pool populations are designed to conserve genes rather than individual breeds. Thus,
several breeds noted for a certain characteristic such as heat tolerance or proliferation might
be interbred to provide a single large reservoir
of genes for this trait. Although the identity of
individual breeds is lost, many genes present
in the breeds are retained. Selection to intensify the trait maybe appropriate, depending on
the potential or current economic importance
of the population. Maintenance of a single interbreeding gene pool is less desirable than of
a subdivided population for long-term gene conservation. For domestic species, however, the
larger population sizes that are possible in a
single gene-pool population are expected to facilitate selection for economically important
characters within the population. Simmental
cattle representing at least five regional or national strains from Europe were imported into
North America in the 1970's, and the current
American Simmental population represents a
151
gene pool constituted from these breeds. A
gene-pool population of pigs was developed in
the early 1970s in Nebraska and used in efforts
to increase ovulation rate (53).
A program to not only maintain but also generate genetic diversity in domestic breeds has
been suggested (26). In this effort, populations
would be selected to generate extreme levels
of performance in specific traits. These populations could serve as reservoirs of genetic variation and their characteristics would be well
known.
Efficient maintenance of captive populations
requires a thorough understanding of the reproductive processes of the species. Optimal
use of breeding stock is often facilitated by an
ability to manipulate and control these processes. In domestic animals, control of the estrous cycle and ovulation through administration of exogenous hormones has become
commonplace, greatly assisting programs of
controlled mating, artificial insemination, and
embryo transfer. In wild species, however,
knowledge of basic reproduction remains
limited. Efforts to expand knowledge in this
area are largely funded by the private sector
and are insufficient.
Infertility is a major problem in many species of zoo animals. It reduces the effective
breeding size of captive populations and exacerbates genetic losses. Infertility can often be
traced to environmental factors such as light,
temperature, nutrition, disease, or social influences. Such problems would be more easily
overcome if more were known about basic reproductive processes in wild animals.
General principles underlying control of reproduction are relatively uniform across species, yet the particular hormone levels observed
and the release patterns of these hormones are
species-specific. A practical, reasonably simple, relatively inexpensive kit for monitoring
urine hormone levels has recently been developed (29). This test helps confirm ovulation,
predict optimal times for insemination, diagnose reproductive dysfunction, and detect preg-
nancy. Because the test is based on urine sam-
152 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
clomid, is being considered to support ovulation in female gorillas (9).
Growing pressure for the international movement of animal germplasm will also place an
increasing premium on knowledge of reproductive biology. In terms of animal safety, convenience, and disease control, movement of semen
and embryos (either fresh or frozen) would be
preferable to the movement of animals. Although the techniques to allow collection, preservation, transport, and use of these tissues are
relatively well developed in domestic animals,
comparable methods do not exist for wild
species.
Photo
Zoological Society of San
New technologies in reproductive physiology offer
possibilities of producing large numbers of offspring
from many vertebrate species. Above, an osmotic pump
filled with gonadotropin-releasing hormone is prepared
for insertion under the skin of a female iguana. The
and ovulated.
iguana subsequently entered
pies, it also avoids problems restraining and
anesthetizing rare animals.
Although reproductive problems in wild animals can often be solved through management
changes, hormone therapy can also be used for
infertility arising from age or unknown environmental factors. In particular, gonadotropinreleasing hormone has been used to initiate and
maintain estrous cycles and ovulation in monkeys, sheep, and cattle. It is administered
through a small osmotic pump implanted beneath the skin and appears to have facilitated
the birth of two cubs to a previously subfertile
cheetah (28). Similarly, a human fertility drug,
Artificial insemination (A. I.) is the introduction of semen into the female reproductive tract
by artificial means. It requires technologies to
allow collection of semen from the male, storage of semen until it can be used, identification of females in the proper stage of the estrous cycle, and deposition of semen at the
appropriate location in the female reproductive tract. Collection of semen from wild species is usually accomplished by electroejaculation, which involves stimulation of ejaculation
by application of a mild, pulsating electrical
current through a lubricated rectal probe. The
process requires restraint and anesthesia of the
male, and semen obtained with this procedure
is often less fertile than that obtained in a natural ejaculate. Use of A.I. likewise requires the
ability to assess the reproductive status of the
female quite accurately, and insemination procedures must be developed that are consistent
with the biochemical and physical characteristics of the female reproductive tract.
Although artificial insemination has been attempted in many species of wild animals, it has
only been successful in a Iimited number and,
in most cases, with one animal in most species.
A.I. with frozen semen has been successful with
even fewer wild species (see table 6-4) such as
the wolf, gorilla, chimpanzee, and giant panda.
Effective use of embryo transfer requires even
greater control of an animal’s reproductive
processes (box 6-D and figure 6-l). Fertilized
ova and early embryos are recovered from the
Ch. 6—Maintaining Animal Diversity Offsite . 153
Box 6-D.-Embryo Transfer
Embryo transfer is a well-established practice in the beef and dairy cattle industries. More than
200,000 transfers are performed annually throughout the world, mainly in the United States and Canada. Although the technique was first used with beef cattle, half the transfers are now in dairy cattle.
The objective is to increase the number of offspring of cows with valuable genetic traits, such as
rapid rates of growth and high levels of milk production. Using this procedure, one valuable cow
can produce on average 12 offspring a year.
The procedure involves inducing superovdation in a donor cow using gonadotrophin hormones,
so that she will produce six to eight eggs rather than one. The cow is artificially inseminated with
semen from a valuable, high-performance bull, and the embryos are collected by nonsurgically flushing the uterus after 6 to 8 days. Embryos that appear viable and healthy by microscopic examination
are transferred to recipient cows that are also at the sixth to eighth day of their estrous cycle. Normally one embryo is transferred to each recipient.
Several new technologies hold promise of making the process more efficient and increasing its
usefulness to animal agriculture. Among these is the ability to freeze bovine embryos. This procedure
is currently used by most embryo transfer companies, and 25 percent of the transfers in the United
States are with frozen embryos. Survival of the embryos is not perfect, however: Transfer of unfrozen
embryos average a 60-percent pregnancy rate, while frozen and thawed embryos can be expected
to yield pregnancy rates of 40 to 50 percent.
Another interesting development in this industry involves cloning bovine embryos. Once developed, this technique would allow the multiplication of large numbers of calves from one valuable
embryo. The cloned embryos could be frozen while other embryos from some clonal lines are tested
to determine if the line is of high value; valuable ones could be replicated using the frozen clones,
providing a powerful tool for livestock improvement. Several research stations are also experimenting with inserting genes for specific productivity traits, such as growth, into embryos before transfer.
The application of these new biotechnologies is expected to expand the size and usefulness of the
cattle embryo transfer industry.
Although embryo transfer could also be a useful tool in swine production, much of the technology
and the industry are not yet well developed. In swine, embryos must be collected and transferred
surgically. And the embryos do not survive freezing with present techniques. This procedure therefore has received little use in the swine industry. In addition, the cost of surgically recovering embryos is likely to preclude wide-scale use of this technology in the near future.
Based on the use of embryo transfer in cattle, research on the applicability of this technology
for wild species was begun in 1981. Although the nonsurgical collection techniques are similar, working with exotic species entails several unique problems, such as, the need to administer drugs by dart
or pole syringe and the need for anesthesia to perform even the simplest procedures. The ultimate
goal was to develop methods for using a common wild species (e.g., the eland antelope) as a surrogate
mother for a less common species (e.g., the bongo antelope).
In 1983, an eland calf was born to a surrogate eland mother, becoming the first non-domestic
issue of a nonsurgical embryo transfer. A transfer involving a frozen embryo was accomplished soon
thereafter. These successes were followed by attempts at interspecies transfer (i.e., a donor and surrogate of different species). Initial efforts for an eland-to-cow transfer were unsuccessful. The eland,
however, proved to be a suitable surrogate mother for an embryo collected from a bongo. This first
documented nonsurgical embryo transfer between two different species of wild animals indicates
that embryos can be gestated by surrogates of differmt species, offering hope for the future of endangered wildlife (figure 6-1).
SOURCE: Adapted from materiala provided by Dr. Neal Firet University of Wbxmsin and Dr. May Dreaaer, Cincinnati Wildlife Research
Federation.
I 154
Technologies
To
Maintain
Biological
Diversity
Photo credit: Zoological
of San Diego
Collection of sperm samples for artificial insemination
and cryogenic storage from non-domestic species is part
of many off site conservation programs. Above, an African
antelope, the scimitar-horned oryx (Oryx gazella
dairnrnah) is tranquilized and undergoing semen
collection by electroejaculation.
Table 6-4.-Successful Artificial Insemination in
Non-domestic Mammals
Guanaco
Llama
Black buck
Bighorn sheep
Brown brocket deer
Reindeer
Red deer
Speke’s gazelle
Giant panda
Chimpanzee
Gorilla
Ferret
Fox
wolf
Persian leopard
Puma
Macaca monkey
Papio baboon
Squirrel monkey
SOURCE: B.L. Dresser, Cincinnati Wildllfe Research Federation, personal communications, Septemtw 19S6.
reproductive tract of a donor female (the genetic
mother) and transferred into the tract of a recipient female (the foster mother), in whom the
embryos develop into full-term individuals. Successful embryo transfer requires synchronization of the estrous cycles of donor and recipient animals (figure 6-2). In domestic animals
this synchrony is usually achieved through exogenous hormone treatment. Donors are induced to produce an excess of eggs (superovulated) by injection of fertility hormones.
Superovulation has been fairly successful with
hoofed mammals, although the results vary considerably. Optimal drugs and dosages have yet
Ch. 6—Maintaining Animal Diversity Offsite . 155
Figure 6-2.— Embryo Transfer Flowchart
Necessary steps in preparing donor and recipient animals
for embryo collection and transfer.
Betsy Dresser, Director of Research, Cincinnati Wildlife Research
1
to be identified in most other species. Donors
are mated naturally or by artificial insemination, and fertilized eggs are collected from the
female tract (surgically and nonsurgically) and
transferred (surgically or nonsurgically) to the
recipient female.
Development of embryo transfer techniques
is important to maintenance of genetic diversity within captive populations, given the considerations of transfer and disease control previously discussed. In addition, surrogate
mothers confer passive immunity to offspring
developed from transferred embryos. Thus, animals moved into new environments or reintroduced to the wild may benefit from being
carried by mothers acclimated to the new environment,
Several more-advanced techniques, studied
primarily in domestic animals, hold considerable potential for all species:
●
Embryo Culture: This technique involves
maintenance of fertilized eggs outside the
body during the early stages of embryonic
development. The appropriate culture me-
dia for development differ among species,
but reliable techniques to culture embryos
for up to 24 hours exist for cattle, rabbits,
mice, sheep, and humans. Successful embryo culture is usually prerequisite to more
sophisticated in vitro embryo manipulation.
Embryo Storage: This technology involves
holding embryos in arrested development
for up to several days, Again, specific storage media must be developed for each
species. Embryo storage procedures can
greatly facilitate transfer of embryos over
long distances and in vitro embryo manipulation.
In Vitro Egg Maturation: This technique
involves the culturing of immature eggs to
maturity. Coupled with in vitro fertilization, this technique could dramatically increase the number of offspring that a given
female might produce. The reproductive
lifetime of the female is also lengthened because ova suitable for culturing can be obtained prior to sexual maturity as well as
after a female is no longer able to conceive
naturally.
In Vitro Fertilization: In a few species, it
is possible to remove unfertilized ova from
a female, mix them with semen in vitro,
and produce fertilized ova that will develop
normally when transferred back into a female, In cases of unexpected death of genetically valuable animals, ova can even
be collected from ovaries shortly after
death.
Embryo Splitting: A single embryo can,
under the proper conditions, be split into
two or four, and each part can subsequently
develop into a live offspring, Although the
offspring are genetically identical, this
process allows a much larger number of
offspring to be produced from each embryo
collection,
Interspecific Embryo Transfer: This involves transfer of embryos between related
species. Thus, embryos of a rare species
could be carried to term by a female of a
more common species. This technology
has enjoyed some success, but much more
research is needed. To date, successful in-
156 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
Przewalski% homes can interbreed withthdr domestic relative, andtlm hybrids producad by such
cross8s were tiegedy incxwpmtad into the R%uwbE ‘axar’s oavdry ~d.
The disappearance d!theqeoka ww pm#M&ly duatu hunting and, mom important, to restricted
access to limited watm suppliti tlmt wam nwncqmlizd by nonmds tifheir MM& ofdonmstic animals.
The homes’ habitat remab, and plans exist to retire th~ spedaa to ite fornwr range in Mongolia.
This restoration effort invoivas tha cuop@rative activities of zmbgical parka in the United States,
the Soviet Union, the United l&tgdo~ and West and East Germany. Animaia will be provided by
zoological parks ftam their expanding populations.
The offsite comervatkm ofspeciw and preservation Ofgenstic diveisitythattkwe efforts reprment
may play an increasing rob in strategies to pravent ektinatimk. The interaction throtqjh movement
of individuals from offdte to onske ciwwrvation fhcilitks mkmea tlm chance of extinction and
simultaneously provides access to mm $pecias for wh.wationai and research purposes.
SOURCE: I)r. oliver Ryder, Research -rtment, * Die$o ZOO.
terspecific embryo transfers have occurred
from mouflon (wild sheep) to domestic
sheep, gaur to cattle, bongo to eland, zebra
to horse, and Przewalski’s horse to pony
(see box 6-E) (9).
The objectives of developing and using
genetic diversity differ between wild and almestic animals. For domestic animals, the potential contribution of rare breeds to food and
fiber production on an international scale is
oof paramount importance. In this context, the
most pertinent technologies are those that facilitate the international movement and evalu-
Ch. 6—Maintaining Animal Diversity Offsite
ation of these breeds. Thus, the previously dis-
cussed technologies of disease control, artificial
insemination, embryo transfer, and cryopreservation of embryos and gametes are extremely
important. In particular, aggressive application
of state-of-the-art technologies for the control
of disease transmission would greatly facilitate
use of foreign germplasm.
Equally important, however, is the fact that
no organized program exists, either in the
United States or elsewhere, to sample, evaluate, preserve, and use available sources of germplasm (3). Current research organizations do
not have the resources to evaluate the many
unique breeds that exist worldwide. Evaluations of animal germplasm could, however, focus on the present and foreseeable U.S. and
world animal production and marketing environments and on the breeds that seem to have
the greatest potential for improving animal food
and fiber production systems (3).
For wild species, programs of development
and utilization are much less clear, The rationale for preservation of such species largely reflects the need to maintain the Earth’s ecological structure and, to many individuals,
utilization of wild species is inconsistent with
this goal. Yet products and processes observed
in wild species have been and will continue to
be of value to society. Armadillos, for example, provide a unique model of human leprosy.
As the understanding of molecular genetics and
157
cellular biology expands, the unique physiological and metabolic processes found in many
wild animals are likely to have progressively
more important research and development applications.
The domestication of wild animals is an emotional issue. It implies imposition of human control of the mating and husbandry of a previously wild species. To many people, this step
is also inconsistent with the preservation of ecological diversity. However, the potential gains
from developing adapted populations of previously wild animals to produce food and fiber in harsh or severely restricted environments
may be too great to ignore. Thus, populations
of red deer in Europe and New Zealand are rapidly becoming domesticated (10), and different
species of deer are being crossed to improve
production characteristics (32), Eland and oryx
in Africa (47), capybara in South America (17),
and crocodiles and butterflies in Papua New
Guinea (33,34) are also being harvested in semicontrolled programs that may entail domestication of segments of these populations. In such
a situation, domestication should not be
avoided. Instead, great care must be taken to
ensure that protected, viable wild populations
are also maintained free of contamination from
domesticated subpopulations. Such an approach, though difficult, is necessary to meet
the joint goals of food production and maintenance of genetic diversity.
NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES
Needs and opportunities for maintaining animal diversity offsite involve both application
of available technologies and development of
new technologies, Needs differ considerably between wild and domestic animals, and these
two groups will be considered separately. For
wild animals, many of the needs involve adaptation of techniques that are currently available
for domestic animals, In some cases, these
adaptations are straightforward. In others, considerable basic research will be required. In almestic animals, efforts to assess and evaluate
global genetic resources and facilitate their
movement will probably assist in maintaining
diversity. Mechanisms to monitor genetic diversity in domestic populations are also badly
needed,
Wild Animals
Expertise in Relevant Areas
Maintenance of captive breeding populations
oof wild animals requires that breeding programs be based on principles of quantitative
genetic management to avoid losses in genetic
158 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
diversity. Likewise, a knowledge of the reproductive biology of the species is required to ensure efficient propagation of the animals in captivity. The need for expertise in these areas has
increased dramatically as offsite programs have
become more common and more complex. Efficient use of animals for genetic purposes requires extensive movement of germplasm
among institutions. These efforts are likely to
increasingly rely on transfer of semen or embryos, especially at the international level, placing a premium on scientific expertise.
To date, development of expertise in the application of reproductive biology and quantitative genetics management has largely occurred
through the initiatives of individual students
within traditional reproductive physiology or
quantitative genetics programs. In reproductive physiology, programs are usually directed
primarily toward domestic animals; efforts to
obtain skills applicable to wild species maybe
met at best with tolerance or at worst with active discouragement. Still, substantial interest
in the reproductive biology of wild animals has
been noted, and students of this field are increasingly tolerated. In quantitative genetics,
training programs tend to emphasize either the
theoretical aspects of quantitative genetics in
natural populations or the applied aspects of
breeding domestic animals. More opportunities to tailor courses to study of wild populations exist in this area than in reproductive
physiology, however.
Fellowships and traineeships in areas that
support maintenance of wild animal genetic
diversity could be provided on a competitive
basis to students in reproductive biology, cryobiology, population genetics, and animal behavior for studies applicable to the genetic and
reproductive management of captive populations of wild animals. The program could be
administered by the National Science Foundation (NSF). Emphasis would be placed on applying knowledge and theory to managed populations. One advantage of such a program
would be sensitization of faculty members to
the needs and opportunities in this area.
A grants program to allow selected educational institutions to expand their expertise in
supporting maintenance of genetic diversity
could be initiated. Grants could be awarded on
a competitive basis and could support extension of applied programs to captive wild species. Such a program would be relatively expensive, however, and would tend to concentrate
expertise instead of encouraging broad access
to needed training.
Facilities for Offsite Maintenance
In recent years, zoo administrators and others
have become aware of the need for wellplanned breeding programs to ensure maintenance of genetic diversity within captive populations. Substantial theoretical work has gone
into developing plans for existing or likely future facilities. The results suggest that today’s
facilities will not be sufficient to maintain
desired levels of diversity. However, zoo personnel appear to have developed mechanisms
to make choices (albeit not unanimous choices)
among competing possibilities. Still, without
additional facilities, losses of diversity appear
likely.
Development of captive maintenance and
breeding facilities could benefit from additional
funding. Such a program would enhance capabilities to preserve biological diversity offsite. Modest levels of funding could have a considerable impact, although substantial funds
would be required to address the total problem.
Funds could be channeled through the National
Zoo in Washington, DC, or through competitive grants to nonprofit zoological parks, Emphasis could be given to species that have
limited captive facilities.
Reproductive Biology and
Cryopreservation
The reproductive processes of most wild animals are not sufficiently understood to allow
optimum rates of reproduction under captive
management. This lack of information becomes
especially acute in light of increasing interest
in artificial insemination and embryo transfer
because these technologies require much greater
control of the reproductive process. Although
the critical elements that control reproduction
and cryopreservation in wild species are anal-
Ch. 6—Maintaining Animal Diversity Offsite
ogous to those in domestic animals, important
differences exist. Thus, extending available
knowledge about domestic animals to wild animals will require accumulation of information
unique to each species or group of species. Optimum use of available individuals in programs
of captive breeding or cryopreservation will
depend on collecting this unique information.
Progress is being made in understanding the
reproductive processes of wild animals, but not
as quickly as it is needed or as it could be used.
Without additional research, many available
captive animals will continue to experience
suboptimal fertility, and fewer total individuals
of all species will be maintained at acceptable
population sizes in available facilities. Semen
from a number of wild species has already been
frozen and exhibits near-normal motility and
morphology when thawed, but its ability to result in conception is largely untested. Likewise,
successful use of frozen embryos has occurred
in only a few species.
A program of competitive grants to support
research on the reproductive biology and
cryopreservation of wild animals could be initiated. This program could be administered
through NSF and would channel funds to both
basic studies on the reproductive biology and
cryobiology of wild animals and to applied
studies of control of reproduction, artificial insemination and embryo transfer. preference
could be given to existing programs that emphasize the integration of programs for wild
and domestic animals.
Another approach could be establishing a few
centers for study of the reproductive biology
of wild animals. These centers could serve as
focuses for programs of basic and applied research. They should be sufficiently well funded
to allow broad programs of research onsite as
well as extramural research with cooperating
institutions, The centers could likewise serve
as repositories for frozen gametes and embryos
from endangered populations as techniques are
perfected.
159
Basic Research in Population Biology
and Genetics
Much of the basic theory of population
genetics was derived in the first half of the 20th
century and was adapted to applications in domestic animal breeding in the 1940s and 1950s.
Current interest in developing breeding programs to maintain representative levels of
genetic diversity within populations of minimum size has introduced several new programdesign questions. These questions relate to such
things as the amount and nature of genetic
diversity that can be lost without compromising the long-term evolutionary potential of the
species, the importance to evolutionary potential of rare genes (which are easily lost by
genetic drift), the long-term importance of mutation to maintenance of diversity (22), and the
importance of genetic diversity (both among
and within species) to maintenance of the integrity of entire ecosystems. In many cases,
these questions deal with validation of longterm quantitative genetics theory; answering
them will require imaginative syntheses of the
disciplines of genetics and ecology.
Some of the needed research is currently being done or has been planned. Without direction, however, it will occur in a piecemeal way,
with no assurance that issues of the highest priority will be addressed. A program of competitive grants to support development, extension,
and validation of quantitative genetic theory
related to questions of maintaining biological
diversity could be developed. This program
could be administered through NSF and would
require less funding (because of fewer equipment needs) than programs in reproductive
biology or cryopreservation. Such a program
could provide a focus for needed efforts in this
area and a mechanism for screening competing proposals to identify those that address
areas of highest priority.
Objective Assessment of Global
Genetic Resources
The potential contributions of indigenous
stocks of animal agriculture both in their coun-
160
Technologies to Maintain Biologic Diversity
try of origin and internationally needs to b e
assessed. Experience with the prolific Finnish
Landrace and Booroola Merino sheep (31,36)
and with Sahiwal cattle (24,48) has shown that
local, specialized stocks can often have wide
utility outside their country of origin. Likewise,
comprehensive performance evaluations of
crosses of indigenous and imported breeds suggest that local animals may make important
contributions to final performance of the crossbreed (5). The use in West Africa of native cattle resistant to trypanosomiasis (23) is an important example. To assess the contributions
of such breeds, objective information must be
available to potential users. In many cases,
some details exist but they are fragmented and
difficult to locate and gain access to. In other
cases, only anecdotal information is available.
Considerable international awareness of the
need for such assessments exists. Efforts to at
least list and broadly categorize breed resources
have been initiated in Europe (30), Latin America (13), and Eastern Asia and Oceania (41),
These efforts have been coordinated by the
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of
the United Nations (14). Efforts in most of the
developing countries have, however, been hampered by insufficient funding to develop electronic databases and library reference facilities.
On balance, efforts to date deserve credit and
have achieved some successes but are still insufficient.
No comparable assessment of breed resources has been undertaken for North America yet, so commissioning one would indicate
support for efforts elsewhere and represent a
minimal contribution by North American countries to a global accounting. The assessment
could be coordinated by the National Academy
of Sciences (NAS) or the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) with technical support
from relevant professional societies (American
Society of Animal Science, American Dairy Science Association, Poultry Science Association,
and Canadian Society of Animal Science) and
private agencies (e.g., American Minor Breeds
Conservancy). A recently initiated NAS project
on global genetic resources could address do-
mestic animal genetic resources and develop
options for improving the present efforts.
Limited additional financial and technical
support for development of databases and library reference facilities in existing foreign
centers could be provided (14). In many cases,
funds for microcomputers, software, and reference materials could provide a major improvement in the capabilities of existing institutions
at limited cost. Necessary funds and consulting personnel could be channeled through
USDA, FAO, or the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID).
Another approach could be the development
of an international center for animal genetic
resources that would be charged with maintenance of a comprehensive base of information
on domestic animal germplasm resources. The
center could maintain and update files on the
status, trends, and characteristics of domestic
breeds worldwide and provide information to
potential users of this germplasm. Charges
would be made to clients requesting information, but to function properly, considerable public subsidization would probably be required.
The center could be a branch of USDA or a part
of the National Agricultural Library. This plan
has the potential disadvantage of moving responsibility for maintenance of the necessary
databases out of national and regional institutions, or at least deemphasizing the roles of such
institutions. Such an approach would tend to
reduce the emphasis on breed evaluation and
preservation at the grassroots level in the countries of origin.
Major new funding to support breed evaluation and characterization efforts could be provided, Even though considerable information
already exists on many foreign breeds, the material is often fragmented and limited to only
descriptive characteristics. The initiation and
support of several major projects to objectively
evaluate and compare indigenous breeds to potential imported breeds for the full array of
productive traits in the country or region of origin would be a tremendous asset in terms of
knowledge of global genetic resources. Funding could be channeled through USDA or AID.
Ch. 6—Maintaining Animal Diversify Offsite
Such a project would require major new funding, incIuding support for development of necessary foreign facilities.
Facilitation of International Movement
of GermpIasm
Effective use of global germplasm requires
that mechanisms exist to facilitate the movement of such resources, This is especially im-
portant for specialized breeds in developing
countries, such as prolific Chinese pigs (52),
which may have utility in crossbreeding programs in industrial countries. The international
movement of germplasm is often difficult because of different countries’ health-related
import-export requirements. This area involves
both technologies for actual movement of germplasm (embryo transfer, semen and embryo collection, etc.) and technologies for prevention
of disease transmission.
The United States currently maintains facilities for quarantine and disease-testing at Plum
Island, NY, and Flemming Key, FL, These stations provide U.S. breeders access to foreign
breeds. The approach taken has usually been
to provide use of these facilities to importers
in the private sector and to require that the cost
of importation be borne completely by the importer, Importation of some breeds of sheep and
swine has been supported by public (USDA)
funds, but these cases are the exceptions.
Assessing private sector importers for importation costs does allow the expense to be borne
by those likely to receive economic benefit from
the sale of imported animals, but it ignores the
public benefits likely to accrue from access to
foreign germplasm. When the decision to import a breed lies solely within the private sector, preference will be given to more traditional
breeds judged to have the most speculative potential while unique breeds of undocumented
value will usually be ignored,
USDA and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) could be directed to
pursue an aggressive program of screening, importation, and evaluation of promising foreign
breeds. Such a program would involve both a
redirection of existing funds and appropriation
161
of modest new funds. Such a program would
recognize the existence of promising foreign
breeds and likewise acknowledge that the
procurement of these breeds is a matter of public interest. A considerable improvement i n
U.S. access to foreign germplasm could be accomplished through such a program with existing technology.
New funding for research and development
on the diagnosis and neutralization of foreign
diseases could be provided to APHIS and other
research laboratories through a system of competitive grants. This new funding could be accompanied by a mandate to aggressively pursue importation of promising foreign
germplasm into the United States. Objectives
of the program would be, first, to validate and
apply recently developed technologies for disease diagnosis (ELISA, DNA probes, etc.) and,
second, to improve on and extend these technologies. Such a program should be able to
accelerate access to foreign germplasm.
The training of foreign professionals in areas
that support germplasm transfer could be supported. These areas would include veterinary
pathology, reproductive biology, with emphasis on techniques for gamete and embryo collection and transfer, and cryobiology. In many
cases, germplasm transfer is limited by insufficient expertise and facilities in the country of
origin. An expanded training program for foreign students and professionals would increase
the chances that the needed expertise existed
onsite. Considerable opportunities for foreign
professionals to receive this kind of training
already exist, however. A major problem is that
students receive sophisticated training in highly
technical areas but have insufficient facilities
and equipment to put their training to use when
they return home.
The development and improvement of foreign centers for transfer of germplasm could
be supported. This improvement would require
new funding to allow development of centers
in major geographical areas of the world. These
centers could serve as focuses for a fui[ range
of considerations relating to maintenance of
biological diversity. In particular, equipment
162 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
and expertise for collection, preparation for
shipment, and preservation of gametes and embryos could be concentrated in such institutions. Facilities for quarantine and diagnostic
testing using advanced technologies would
greatly facilitate germplasm transfer. To be effective, these centers would have to be well
funded and equipped on a continuing basis.
Ideally, they would address a range of biological
diversity issues, for wild as well as domestic
animals, including maintenance of information
centers and repositories for cryopreservation
of frozen semen and embryos of rare native
breeds.
Losses Of Genetic Diversity
Among and Within Broods
Indiscriminate crossbreeding of so-called improved breeds from industrial nations coupled
with increasing intensification within the poultry, swine, and dairy industries have resulted
in reductions in global breed diversity and may
lead to substantial losses of rare breeds. Within
some of the major commercial breeds of livestock, losses in genetic diversity may also be
occurring because of narrow selection goals
and intensified use of individual sires and their
sons through artificial insemination.
A National Board for Domestic Animal Resources could be established, composed of representatives from USDA, universities, private
foundations, and industry. The board could provide a mechanism to coordinate animal germplasm conservation activities. The program
could be established through a directive to a
lead agency such as USDA and would not require additional legislation. Such aboard would
identify potential sources of foreign germplasm
for import and monitor the status of genetic
diversity within commercial breeds. It could
also monitor the status of rare breeds within
the United States and make recommendations
for their preservation and use. The board could
act as a liaison with institutions in other countries and show a U.S. commitment to maintenance of domestic animal biological diversity.
It would be primarily advisory in nature but
should possess some funding to implement its
recommendations to function effectively.
An International Board on Domestic Animal
Resources could also be established. This board
could provide international coordination of
programs, set standards and coordinate the exchange and storage of germplasm, and provide
funds to support activities in developing countries, probably at the regional level. Some efforts have already been made in this direction,
and the United States could support and expand these efforts.
A program to identify, conserve, and use endangered breeds of potential value worldwide
could be developed. It could identify rare breeds
of potential value worldwide, with subsequent
negotiation of procedures to protect and maintain the genetic integrity of these populations
within the country of origin. If maintenance
of such populations within the country of origin could not be assured, the United States
could support collection and cryogenic storage
of gametes and embryos. Semen of all mammalian livestock can be successfully frozen, as
can embryos of all mammalian livestock species except the pig. Such storage could be located in this country to ensure maximum safet y
of the preserved material, and it would include
material that could not be imported as live animals under current animal health regulations.
Efforts such as these would require close co-
operation with the countries of origin of the
various breeds to avoid the perception of exploitation of foreign resources for the sole benefit of the United States.
A program like this could also monitor the
status of genetic diversity within commercial
populations in the United States. This monitoring would involve interacting with industry to ensure maintenance of genetically diverse
poultry control strains, retaining semen from
a wide sample of dairy bulls as a reservoir of
genetic diversity, and monitoring the status of
other species.
Ch. 6—Maintaining Animal Diversity Offsite
●
163
CHAPTER 6
1. Ashwood-Smith, M, J., and Grant, E., “Genetic
Stability in Cellular Systems Stored in the Frozen State, ” The Freezing of Mammalian Embryos, K, Elliott and J. Whelan (eds.) (Amsterdam: Elsevier, lgpi’).
2. Conway, W, G,, “The Practical Difficulties and
Financial Implications of Endangered Species
Breeding Programs, ” International Zoo Year-
logical Diversity: Status and Trends for Agri13.
14.
book, 1986.
3. Council for Agricultural Science and Technol-
ogy, “Animal Germ Plasm Preservation and Utilization in Agriculture, ” Council for Agricultural Science and Technology Report No. 101,
15.
1984.
4. Cunningham, E. P., “European Friesians—The
Canadian and American Invasion, ” Animal
Genetic Resources Information, January 1983,
pp. 21-23.
5. DeAlba, J., and Kennedy, B. W., “Criollo and
Temperate Dairy Cattle and Their Crosses in a
Humid Tropical Environment,” Animal Genetic
Resources Conservation by Management, Data
Banks and Training, FAO Animal Production
and Health Paper 44/1, 1984, pp. 102-104.
6 Denniston, C., “Small Population Size and
Genetic Diversity Implications for Endangered
Species,” Endangered Birds, S. Temple (cd,)
(Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press,
1977), Pp. 281-289.
7. Douglass, E. M., and Gould, K, G., “Artificial Insemination in Lowland Gorilla (GoriJla gorilla), ”
16,
cultural Domesticated Animals, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the
United Nations, “Recursos Geneticos Animales
en Americana Latina, ” FAO Animal Production
and Health Paper 22, 1981.
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the
United Nations, “Animal Genetic Resources
Conservation by Management, Data Banks and
Training, “ FAO Animal Production and Health
Paper 44/1, 1984.
Franklin, I. R., “Evolutionary Change in Small
Population,” Conservation Biology, M.E. Soul~
and B.A. Wilcox (eds. ) (Sunderland, MA:
Sinauer Associates), 1980, pp. 135-149.
Glenister, P. H., Whittingham, D. G,, and Lyon,
M. F,, “Further Studies on the Effect of Radiation During the Storage of Frozen 8-Cell Mouse
Embryos at – 1960 C,” Journal of Reproduction
and Fertility 70:229-234, 1984.
17. Gonzalez-Jeminez, E., “The Capybara: An In-
digenous Source of Meat in Tropical America, ”
World Animal Review 21:24-30, 1977.
18. Graham, E, F., Schmehl, M. R., and Deyo,
R, C. M., “Cryopreservation and Fertility of Fish,
Poultry and Mammalian Spermatozoa, ” Proceedings of the Iuth Technical Conference on
Artificial Insemination and Reproduction, Na-
tional Association of Animal Breeders, 1984, pp.
4-29,
Proceedings of the American Association of Zoo
Veterinarians, 1981, pp. 128-130.
19. Hare, W, C, D., and Singh, E. L., “Control of Infectious Agents in Bovine Embryos, ” Proceed-
8. Dresser, B. L., Kramer, L,, Dahlhausen, R. D.,
ings of an International Symposium on Microbiological Tests for the International Exchange of
Animal Genetic Material, 1984, pp. 80-85.
Pope, C. E., and Baker, R. D., “Cryopreservation
Followed by Successful Transfer of African
Eland Antelope (Tragelaphus oryx) Embryos, ”
Proceedings of the Ioth International Congress
on Animal Reproduction and Artificial Insemination, 1984, pp. 191-193.
9. Dresser, B. L., and Leibo, S. P., “Technologies To
Maintain Animal Germ Plasm in Domestic and
Wild Species, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1986.
10. Drew, K.R. (cd.), Advances in Deer Farming
(Wellington, New Zealand: Editorial Services,
Ltd., 1978).
11. Eaglesome, M. D., Hare, W. C. D., and Singh,
E. L., “Embryo Transfer: A Discussion of Its Potential for Infectious Disease Control Based on
a Review of Studies on Infection of Gametes and
Early Embryos by Various Agents, ” Canadian
Veterinary Journal 21:106-112, 1980.
12. Fitzhueh. H. A.. Getz. W.. and Baker. F. H.. “Bio-
20. Heuschele, W. P., “Management of Animal Dis-
ease Agents and Vectors Potentially Hazardous
for Animal Germ Plasm Resources, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985,
21. Hill, W. G., “Estimation of Genetic Change, I:
General Theory and Design of Control Populations, ” Animal Breeding Abstracts 40:1-15,
1972.
22. Hill, W. G., “Predictions of Response to Artificial Selection From New Mutations, ’ Genetical Research 40:255-278, 1982.
23. International Livestock Centre for Africa, “Try-
panotolerant Livestock in West and Central
Africa, Volume I: General Study,” International
Livestock Centre for Africa Monograph z, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia, l!lTg.
24. International Livestock Centre for Africa, “Sa-
164 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
hiwal Cattle: An Evaluation of Their Potential
Contribution to Milk and Beef Production in
Africa, ” International Livestock Centre for
Africa Monograph 3, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia,
1981.
25. King, J. W. B., “Genetic Exhaustion in SinglePurpose Breeds,” Proceedings of the FAO/UNEP
Technical Consultation on Animal Genetic Resources Conservation and Management, FAO
Animal Production and Health Paper 24, 1981,
Pp. 230-242.
26. Land, R. B., “An Alternate Philosophy for Livestock Breeding, ” Livestock Production Science
8:95-99, 1981.
Lande, R,, and Barrowclough, G. F., “Effective
Population Size, Genetic Variation and Their
Use in Population Management,” Viable Populations, M.E. Soul~ (cd.) (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Co., 1986).
28. Lasley, B. L., and Wing, A., “Stimulating Ovarian Function in Exotic Carnivores With Pulses
of GnRH, ” Proceedings of the American Asso-
27.
ciation of Zoo Veterinarians, 1983, p. 14,
29. Loskutoff, N. M., Ott, J. E., and Lasley, B. L.,
“Monitoring the Reproductive Status of the
Okapi (Okapia johnstoni],” Proceedings of the
American Association of Zoo Veterinarians,
1981, P. 149.
30. Maijala, K,, Cherekaev, A. V., Devillard, J. M.,
Reklewski, Z., Rognoni, G., Simon, D. L., and
Steane, D. E., “Conservation of Animal Genetic
Resources in Europe, Final Report of an E. A,A.P,
Working Party, ” Livestock Production Science
11:3-22, 1984,
31. Maijala, K., and Osterberg, S., “Productivity of
Pure Finnsheep in Finland and Abroad,” Livestock Production Science 4:355-377, 1977.
32. Moore, G. H., “Deer Imports,” New Zealand
Agricultural Science 18:19-24, 1984.
33. National
Research Council, “Butterfly Farming
in Papua New Guinea” (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1983).
34. National Research Council, “Crocodiles as a Resource for the Tropics” (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1983).
3s. Netter, D. R., and Foose, T. J., “Concepts and
Strategies To Maintain Domestic and Wild Animal Germplasm, ” OTA commissioned paper,
1985.
36. Piper, L. R,, Bindon, B. M., and Nethery, R.D.
(eds.), The Booroola Merino (Melbourne, Australia: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organization, 1980),
37. Pope, C. E., Pope, V. Z., and Beck, L. R., “Live
Birth Following Cryopreservation and Transfer
of a Baboon Embryo, ” Fertility and Sterility
42:143-145, 1984.
38, Seiger, S. W. J., “A Review of Artificial Methods
of Breeding in Captive Wild Species, ” The
Dodo, journal of the Jersey Wildlife Preservation Trust 18:79-93, 1981.
39. Simon, D. L., “Conservation of Animal Genetic
Resources—A Review, ” Livestock Production
Science 11:23-36, 1984.
40. Smith, C., “Genetic Aspects of Conservation in
Farm Livestock, ” Livestock Production Science
11:3-48, 1984.
41. Society for the Advancement of Breeding Re-
searchers in Asia and Oceania, “Evaluation of
Animal Genetic Resources in Asia and Oceania )” Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1981.
42. Somes, R. G., “International Registry of Poultry
Genetic Stocks, ” Storrs Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 469, 1984.
43. Soul&, M. E,, Gilpin, M., Conway, W., and Foose,
T., “The Millennium Ark: How Long the Voyage, How Many Staterooms, How Many Passengers?” Zoobio]ogy 5:101-114, 1986.
44. Stalheim, O.H.V. (cd.), “Proceedings of an International Symposium on Microbiological
Tests for the International Exchange of Animal
Genetic Material” (Madison, WI: American
Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, 1984).
45, Stalheim, O. H. V., Bartlett, D. E., Carbrey, E. H.,
Knutson, W. W., Landford, E. V., and Seigfried,
L., “Recommended Procedures for the Microbiologic Examination of Semen” (Madison, WI:
American Association of Veterinary Laboratory
Diagnosticians, 1979).
46. Templeton, A. R., and Read, B., “The Elimination of Inbreeding Depression in a Captive Herd
of Speke’s Gazelle, ” Genetics and Conservation,
C.M. Schonewald-Cox, S.M. Chambers, B. MacBryde, and L. Thomas (eds,) (Menlo Park, CA:
Benjamin/Cummings, 1983).
47. Thresher, P., “The Economics of Domesticated
Oryx Compared With That of Cattle,” World
Animal Review 36:37-43, 1980,
48, Trail, J. C. M., “Cattle Breed Evaluation Studies
by the International Livestock Centre for
Africa,” Animal Genetic Resources Information, January 1983, pp. 17-20.
49, Wallace, B,, and Vetukhiv, M,, “Adaptive Organization of the Gene Pools of Drosophila Populations,” Gold Spring Harbor Symposium on
Quantitative Biology 20:303-309, 1955.
50, VVhittingham, D. G., Leibo, S. Y., and Mazar, P.,
Ch. 6—Maintaining Animal Diversity Offsite
“Survival of Mouse Embryos Frozen to – 1960
and – 260° C,” Science 178:411-414, 1972.
51. Wilmut, I., “Effect of Cooling Rate, Warming
Rate, Cryoprotection Agent, and Stage of Development on Survival of Mouse Embryos During
Cooling and Thawing, ” Life Science 11, Part
2:1071-1079, 1972.
52, Zhang, W., Wu, J. S., and Rempel, W. E., “Some
●
165
Performance Characteristics of Prolific Breeds
of Pigs in China, ” Livestock Production Science
10:59-68, 1983.
53. Zimmerman, D.R. and Cunningham, P. J., “Se-
lection for Ovulation Rate in Swine: Population,
Procedures and Ovulation Response, ” Journal
of Animal Science 40:61-69, 1975.
Chapter 7
Maintaining
Plant Diversity
Offsite
CONTENTS
Page
Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................,.169
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . * , * . * . . . . . . . 169
Objectives of Offsite Collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....169
Considerations in Selecting Technologies . .................,....,.,..171
Collecting Samples .. .., O.. .. O....., . ...............,,,..,......,...173
Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............,.....,173
Selecting Sites for Collecting .. ., D O, . . . . . . . . . . ,, ...................173
Quarantine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...,..,......175
Quarantine and Plant Importation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ..,......,.177
Safeguards for Reducing Risk in Imported Germplasm. . ............,..177
Storing Samples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................,178
Conventional Seed Storage, . . . . . . . . . ...................,.......,...180
Cryogenic Storage of Seeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......,183
Field Maintenance and Controlled Environments . ....................184
pollen Storage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................184
Biotechnology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,.,,.,.,,,...,....185
Management of Stored Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....187
Using Plants Stored Offsite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .., ... ..190
Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... ... ...,l90
Traditional Breeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..,.,..........,..,...191
Biotechnological Improvement O..**. , . . . . . . . . . * * * . . * . 191
Needs and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,, ...........194
Develop a Standard Operating Procedure . .................,...,..,.,194
Improve Movement of Germplasm Through Quarantine . ..,...........196
Promote Basic Research on Maintenance and Use of Plant Germplasm ..196
Chapter preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................197
●
●
●
Tables
Page
Table No.
7-1. Crops and Trees Commonly Prohibited Entry by Quarantine
Regulations in 125 Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...,178
7-2. Technologies and Practices To Detect Pests and Diseases of
Quarantine Significance and the Pathogens to Which They Are Most
Frequently Applied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........,.179
7-3. Storage Technologies for Germplasm of Different Plants . .......,....179
7-4. Estimated Costs of Conventional and Cryogenic Storage . ........,,..184
7-!5. Somaclonal Variationin Economically Important Plant Species . ......193
Figures
Page
Figure No.
7-1. Regions of the World Where Major Food Crops Were Domesticated ..,176
7-2. Maintenance Process of a P1ant Seed Bank . ...............,,.,.,...180
Boxes
Box N o.
Page3
7-A. Definitions Relevant to Offsite Plant Collections . ...............,...170
7-B. The History of Plant Collection ..*.**. .**.,** ,..,.0.. . . . . . . . . . . . 174
7-C. Breeding and the Development of Gaines Wheat. . .................,192
●
Maintaining Plant Diversity Offsite
HIGHLIGHTS
. Seed storage techniques are being used to conserve the genetic diversity of
cereals, legumes, and many other important crop species. Some plants, however, do not produce seeds that can be stored. Eventually, this problem may
be resolved with techniques for in vitro storage of plant tissue, from which
whole plants can be regenerated. At present, the main alternative to seed storage is to grow entire specimens in the field.
● New technologies, including cryogenic storage of seeds and clones, use of biochemical methods to characterize accessions, and improved methods to detect
pathogens in plant materials transferred internationally, have the potential to
increase the cost-effectiveness of maintaining plant diversity offsite. Progress,
however, is constrained by a lack of fundamental research on plant physiology, reproductive processes, and the mechanisms of genetic and cellular change.
● Priorities and protocols for collecting and maintaining germplasm of major
crop plants are internationaIIy coordinated. However, they are not wellorganized for minor crops or for wild plants that are endangered or have economic potential.
● Long-term public and private support for germplasm storage facilities depends
on whether the stored materials prove to be valuable. The use of offsite collections can be improved by characterizing the genetic diversity contained in the
collections and evaluating collections for important traits.
Major breakthroughs in biotechnologies might eventually lead to fundamental
changes in how biological diversity is maintained. Even so, a large portion
of public resources for technology development should be used in improving
the application of existing technologies, such as cryogenic storage of germplasm, that are important to society but are not attractive to the private sector
to support.
OVERVIEW
One approach to maintaining plant diversity
involves collecting samples of agricultural and
wild species and storing them in offsite collections, Such collections can assemble agriculturally, geographically, and ecologically diverse
plants for use in crop improvement, genetic research, or plant conservation. This chapter assesses technologies of collecting, storing, and
using plants offsite,
Objectives Offsite Collections
Offsite collections of agricultural crops bring
together varieties and related species from
widely dispersed areas (box 7-A). These collections conserve plant genetic resources threatened with loss or extinction. They also serve
as a convenient source of new genes for public
and private plant improvement. The highly suc-
169
170 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
Ch. 7—Maintaining P/ant Diversity Offsite
cessful rice variety 1R36 developed by the International Rice Research Institute resulted
from the crossbreeding of 13 accessions in their
collections of rice from the United States and
several Asian countries (Pg). wild plant collections help to preserve endangered species, supply materials to restore degraded lands, and
provide material for genetic improvement of
crops.
Botanic gardens and arboretums aretheprimary repositories for wild plant species (69,
112). Arboretums have been particularly important for maintaining individual trees and shrubs
that may have little commercial significance
(69). These facilities may also have commitments to public education and display that can
result in selecting plants with special or unusual
characteristics rather than those representing
the genetic diversity within the species. However, many such institutions are now giving
greater attention to the potential contributions
they can make to maintaining plant diversity
(12,34),
Considerations in SeIecting
Technologies
No single technology is appropriate for all
the plants stored in offsite collections. Several
171
considerations affect the selection of appropriate technologies such as biological limitations
of the species, reliability of the technology, and
cost.
Biological Limitations
Seeds are the most commonly and easily
stored propagules of plants. When placed in
conditions that reduce their moisture content
to approximately 5 to 6 percent, seeds of many
species will remain viable for years. Lowered
temperatures can further extend storage life.
Seeds able to withstand reduction in moisture
and temperature are called orthodox seeds.
Most of the major food crops (e.g., cereals and
legumes) have orthodox seeds, and many, when
properly dried, withstand cooling to – 196° C,
the temperature used in cryopreservation (58,
85,89,100,108).
Seeds that cannot survive a reduction in moisture content are called recalcitrant seeds. Recalcitrant seeds are found in many important tropical species, a few temperate tree species, and
some aquatic plants (8,42,83,100,108,118).
Reducing the water content of recalcitrant
seeds severely shortens their life span. Thus,
they cannot be stored like orthodox seeds: cooling to subfreezing temperatures would lead to
Board for
Genetic Resources
Many temperate and tropical species such as coffee and oil palm have seeds that cannot be stored for long periods;
for this reason, collection of woody cuttings is preferred.
172 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
formation of ice, resulting in damaged cells and
death of seeds. Instead, plants with recalcitrant
seeds are commonly stored as field collections.
Research on the physiology of recalcitrant seeds
may lead to methods for long-term seed maintenance of these species. In vitro plantlet or embryo culture, coupled with cryogenic storage,
may also eventually become useful for these
species.
Two other biological limitations may restrict
the maintenance of some plants. First, the qualities that distinguish a particular variety (e.g.,
flower color and shape in roses; or the color,
flavor, and texture of a peach) may not be preserved in plants grown from seeds, For many
fruit and nut varieties, retention of these specific qualities is only possible through clonal
propagation, which entails producing plants
from cuttings or by grafting. Second, some
plants do not produce seeds readily because of
inappropriate environmental conditions, physiological barriers, or genetic inabilities, In some
cases, such as many varieties of banana or the
tropical yams (Dioscorea), plants are sterile and
seeds cannot be obtained. Basic studies of physiology are needed to improve understanding
of the processes controlling flowering and seed
production for both cultivated and wild plant
species.
Reliability
The reliability of technology refers to both
the potential for loss (by natural causes, accident, or equipment failure) and the likelihood
of genetic alteration during storage.
The potential for loss by natural causes is
higher in field collections than in seed collections. Pests, diseases, and environmental conditions can decimate field collections. Therefore,
collections should be duplicated in different
locations to ensure against loss. Greenhouses
or other controlled environments may reduce
the potential for loss by reducing environmental
exposure. Research of in vitro culture may lead
to alternatives to field collections that are free
from disease and environmental uncertainties.
Collections are also subject to equipment failure. As a backup measure, mechanical refrig-
eration compressors should have alternative
power systems to prevent warming, which may
adversely affect the viability of stored seeds
(100). Cryogenic techniques do not rely on external power sources or mechanical cooling systems. And though containers may develop
leaks, the risks to security are considered much
less than for mechanical refrigeration (100,101).
Some novel approaches to reducing dependence on mechanical cooling systems are being tested. The Nordic Gene Bank in Sweden
recently established a long-term storage facility in old mines dug into the permafrost (125).
The Polish Government proposed establishing
a world seed collection in Antarctic ice caves,
but this approach raises questions about storage temperatures and about ease of access and
political control (55). An approach being developed in Argentina is to use the cold nights
of mountain environments to cool a specially
constructed storage vault (55). These options,
while interesting, are suitable for only certain
countries and are still experimental.
Genetic stability of plants can be affected in
several ways. Mutations in orthodox seeds may
increase as samples lose their ability to germinate (84,108). Growing out samples subjects
them to conditions that will select against certain individuals and thus reduce genetic diversity in the sample (88). Cryogenic storage can
improve genetic stability by slowing viability
loss and lengthening the time needed between
regenerations. For in vitro cultures, genetic mutation becomes a concern when the tissues are
growing as unorganized calli. Cryogenic storage of such cultures could suppress mutation
by arresting growth, but more research on plant
development and cryopreservation of in vitro
cultures is still needed (90,108).
Costs
A final consideration in the selection of technologies is cost. In seed storage facilities, expenses are incurred with monitoring viability
and regenerating samples. Mechanical refrigeration systems can be expensive because of
continuous energy costs. Cryogenic storage can
lower long-term costs by reducing the fre-
Ch. 7—Maintaining Plant Diversity Offsite
quency of viability monitoring and regeneration. However, cryogenic storage is economical for only certain plant species; larger seeds,
such as beans, may be stored more economically under mechanical refrigeration (102).
●
173
In vitro cultures may be more economical
than extensive field collections, particularly if
the cultures are stored cryogenically. However,
further research and development is needed on
both in vitro culture and cryogenic storage,
COLLECTING SAMPLES
Collecting samples involves the development
of strategies as well as the actual collection of
plants. Developing strategies can be facilitated
by analyzing plants already in storage, Ideally,
a strategy would provide for the collection of
all genetic variants of a species without redundancy (37) (box 7-B).
sources (IUCN) and the Center for Plant Conservation at the Arnold Arboretum of Harvard
University are beginning to focus the expertise
and resources of botanic gardens, arboretums,
and private collectors to improve offsite maintenance of wild plants.
Selecting Sites for Collecting
Strategies
Considerations of economic or esthetic importance, rarity, degree of endangerment, access, genetic diversity, and similarity to plants
already stored offsite can all influence the setting of strategies.
Studies of the geographic distribution of
plants, the experiences of scientists and plant
collectors, computer-based models, and re-
For the major agricultural species, collection
strategies have been established by considering the data on plants already collected, geographic distribution of crop species, particular needs of breeders, and the economic or
social importance of the crop (117). The International Board for Plant Genetic Resources has
established a system of priority ratings to guide
collectors: priority 1 crops are those with most
urgent global collection needs; Priorities 2, 3,
and 4 indicate descending orders of urgency
(51,73),
Strategies are less clearly established for the
collection of most wild species (66), In general,
those threatened in their natural environment
or of display value have received greater attention (69,1 12). A formal system for coordinating conservation activities has only recently
been established (34,112). Botanic gardens,
commercial institutions, and private collections
have been growing and propagating rare plants
for years but without concern for obtaining a
range of genetic diversity (69). organizations
such as the Botanic Gardens Conservation Coordinating Body of the International Union for
the Conservation of Nature and Natural Re-
Photo credit M O’Grady
Collecting natural rubber
in the Amazon forest.
Natural rubber still has many industrial uses for which
synthetic rubber cannot be employed.
174 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
search on the origins of plants have enabled
scientists to locate regions rich in diversity of
crop species. The regions where most of the
major crop species were originally domesticated and developed are known as centers of
diversity, after a scheme first proposed by botanist N.I. Vavilov of the Soviet Union (45,57).
At least 12 centers of diversity are now recognized (figure 7-1). Primitive varieties and related
wild species that are able to survive in diverse
habitats and resist a variety of crop-specific diseases can be located in these areas.
Some guidelines are available for collecting
a genetically diverse sample (12,47). For instance, plants growing in areas of different soil,
water, or light conditions may represent types
that have genetic adaptations and could prove
to be valuable sources of particular genetic
traits. But guidelines for collecting seeds or
Ch. 7—Maintaining Plant Diversity Offsite
●
175
Scientists and experienced collectors also
provide helpful information on collecting sites.
Several of the large so-called genetic stock collections of crop germplasm in the United States,
such as the one for tomato at the University
of California-Davis, are overseen by a few individuals with special interests in that crop. The
knowledge these people have about origins and
distribution of a crop is frequently the result
of extensive observations and field collecting
experiences.
de
Papa (C/P)
Collecting wild potato species in South America,
a center of potato diversity.
other propagation materials (cuttings, tubers,
etc.) are only general and may be altered by specific conditions in the field. For example, the
Central America and Mexico Coniferous Resources Cooperative (CAMCORE) has established guidelines for environmental and geographic factors to consider, depending on the
number of trees to collect from, and the amount
of seed to be collected (25,26). But if collectors
encounter small populations of tree species, collection is made from any tree with seed (26).
Thus, the guidelines for a collecting expedition
depend heavily on the expertise and judgment
of the individual collector.
Computer-based modeling is another potentially useful tool for predicting the location of
sites appropriate for collecting. Data from a few
key locations may provide information on the
distribution of a particular crop trait, such as
drought tolerance. A map can then be constructed by computer-based extrapolation of
neighboring regions. Areas likely to contain
plants with similar characteristics could be
selected (2). However, this technology has its
limitations. This kind of analysis requires precise data on latitude, longitude, and elevation
for collected plants, for example—information
that is not currently available in most crop databases (2). And because overall geographic information comes from satellite imagery, it can
be prohibitively expensive (2). Political or other
(e.g., geographic) restrictions on collecting in
some areas may also make acquisition of plant
samples difficult. Finally, data for the initial
profile are obtained from sites chosen by statistical analysis, and plant distribution may not
parallel these mathematically chosen sites. Refinements in existing databases, collection information, and artificial intelligence systems
may someday allow such models to assist in
collecting. However, it seems the importance
of using existing data for such tasks has been
overlooked (46).
Quarantine
After samples have been collected, complications may arise in transporting them. Movement of plants from one region to another always carries some risk that pests (nematodes,
snails, insects, etc.) or pathogens (viruses, bacteria, or fungi) will also be transported (14,59,
176 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
I
.,
Ch. 7—Maintaining Plant Diversity Offsite . 177
60). Plants destined for offsite collections, par-
ticularly those from centers of diversity, can
present particular quarantine concerns. These
centers possess not only considerable crop
diversity but also widely adapted crop pests and
pathogens. An area where coffee and the disease coffee-rust coexist, for example, would be
a likely place to obtain plants with rust resistance genes, but it could also have pathogens
that have adapted to coffee plants (60).
The presence of most exotic pests can be determined by inspection or by treatment of plants
upon entry, but some imported plants may be
detained while tested for obscure pathogens.
Such testing requires well-equipped laboratories and personnel as well as considerable
time. This last constraint—5 or more years for
the detection of certain viruses and virus-like
organisms in woody plants—can profoundly affect importation of some plants (60).
Quarantine and plant Importation
Establishing quarantine policies and practices for a particular plant species depends on
both knowledge of its risk of carrying pests or
pathogens and availability of technologies to
detect such pathogens (table 7-I). Most plant
species, when imported according to regulations (e. g., clean and free of soil, and subject
to inspection at an authorized port of entry),
are considered unlikely to be carrying harmful organisms and thus to be of low risk (60).
Some agricultural crops, such as rice, sorghum, or sugarcane and their related wild species, require greater attention because they
might contain pathogens not easily detected by
current technologies.
Certain agricultural plants or plant parts used
for vegetative propagation (e.g., sugarcane
stems or potato tubers) represent the greatest
risk to agriculture because they maybe infected
with undetected pathogens (60). The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) allows small
quantities of these plants to be imported for scientific use only. Permits typically require that
plants be grown under the supervision of a
knowledgeable specialist and may require diagnostic testing for pathogens as well as special-
ized growing practices (60). Once plants have
cleared safeguard restrictions, they may be distributed to the general public.
In the United States, some plants (e.g., apples, pears, and potatoes) are held at one of the
Agricultural Research Service’s Plant Protection and Quarantine facilities until they are considered free of any pests or pathogens (60).
Plants in this group face the most constraints
because the hazards associated with importing
them are highest (60). These plants may be held
for several years after their original importation.
In developing countries, plant quarantine systems may lack scientific expertise, facilities, or
appropriate governmental infrastructures to
support them (14). Therefore, they depend heavily on such regulatory constraints as import refusal, lengthy quarantine, or treatment for pests
or pathogens, These restrictions can result in
considerable delay in importation of plants to
facilities in these areas.
Safeguards for Reducing Risk in
Imported Germplasm
A number of actions and regulations, either
at the place of origin or at the port of entry,
reduce the risks associated with plant importation.
Inspection, certification, testing, or treatment
of plants before export can reduce potential
quarantine delays (60). Most plants require little more than inspection to move quickly through
quarantine. In vitro plantlet cultures can, in
some cases, be imported with fewer restrictions
than the plants from which they originate, Such
cultures, though, are not considered free of disease without diagnostic testing (60).
Upon entry, plants likely to contain pathogens can be tested with a variety of technologies (table 7-2) (59,60). However, procedures
vary in reliability and in the resources they require. Indexing, which uses highly sensitive indicator plants, is the most reliable and wideIy
used method, but it requires considerable greenhouse space to maintain the plants necessary
for this test (60). Serologic methods that use an-
178 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
Table 7-1 .—Crops and Trees Commonly Prohibited Entry by Quarantine Regulations in 125 Countries
Crops and trees
Forest crops.’
Maple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chestnut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conifers b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hawthorn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Walnut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Poplar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Oak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Willow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Elm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fruit crops:
Citrus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Coconut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Strawberry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Banana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pome fruitsc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Prunus (cherry, plum, etc) . . . . . .
Currant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Grapevine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Vegetable crops:
Sweet potato . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Potato . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Percentages of
countries prohibiting:
Plants
Plants
Seeds
and seeds
only
only a
Number of countries
in which crops/genera
are prohibited
Percentages of countries
that name one or more
pests or pathogens
14
34
27
14
21
27
25
22
24
32
43
23
26
86
48
44
47
45
58
47
100
0
76
24
93
92
7
8
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
96
94
4
16
0
62
28
20
39
37
37
16
41
45
32
55
39
68
68
38
41
55
29
65
54
85
85
69
90
45
64
35
46
15
15
31
23
41
35
41
61
39
90
10
31
23
40
24
25
20
18
Other crops:
49
Coffee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
52
15
Sunflower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rubber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28
26
Tobacco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
Oil palm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33
22
Rose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
43
Cacao . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20
40
Sugarcane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
alncludes plants as well as any parts for vegetative Propagation
bspeclflcauy the genera P/cea, Larix, Pinus, andAb@
Clncludes the generac~aeno~e/es, Cydonia, Ma/us, and ~YrfJs
100
100
100
0
0
0
10
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
14
0
50
29
31
38
42
41
42
35
56
21
57
61
80
71
58
44
61
100
0
0
19
45
63
79
55
37
2
45
10
0
7
0
0
0
SOURCE R.P Kahn, “Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity” Assessment of Plant Quarantine Practices,” OTAcommlssioned papeh 1985.
tibodies to pathogens provide rapid results but
may not detect all forms of a particular pathogen (60), Molecular techniques to detect the
genetic material of pathogens are available,but
these may require better-equipped laboratories
and greater expertise than is available in many
quarantine programs, Identifying the presence
of a pathogen can thus be difficult because a
negative result maybe due to inadequate technology. It is essential, therefore, that the limits
of any technology be understood. Basic research on the biology of pathogenic organisms
and the technologies used to detect them is
needed to improvetesting procedures, develop
them for other pests and pathogens, and understand the limits.
STORING SAMPLES
Storage technologies aim to preserve an adequate amount of plant germplasm, sustain its
viability, and preserve its original genetic con-
stitution (81). Plants can be maintained offsite
in a numberofforms and with a number of technologies (table 7-3). They may be maintained
Ch. 7—Maintaining Plant Diversity Offsite
●
179
Table 7“2.—Technologies and Practices To Detect Pests and Diseases of Quarantine Significance
and the Pathogens To Which They Are Most Frequently Applied
Technology/practice:
Description
Range a
Physical examination:
Physical manifestations of disease-producing agents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Seed health testing:
Germinating seed in culture conditions that allow growth of fungi or bacteria. Microscopic
examination of seed for pathogens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Grow-out testing:
Growing plants under controlled conditions until diseases are no longer detected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
/ndexing:
Attempted transfer of pathogens from a plant under examination to another species that is highly
sensitive to infection by them. Can involve transfer by mechanical abrasion with extracts
or by grafting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Electron microscopy:
Examination of extracts or tissues for the presence of pathogens or their spores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Inclusion bodies:
Light microscopic examination of tissues for structures characteristic of pathogen infection. . . . . . . . . .
Serologic testing:
An array of procedures utilizing the ability of test animals to produce antibodies that are highly
specific for a particular pathogen. Important variations include enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay,
radioimmunosorbent assay, and immunosorbent electron microscopy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Polyactylamide gel electrophoresis:
Detects ribonucleic acid (RNA) of pathogens in small amounts of tissue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nucleic acid hybridization:
New technology that uses recombinant DNA procedures to locate the genetic material of a pathogen
in DNA extracted from tissue samples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
aA = Most pests and pathogens, B = bacteria; F = fungi, V = wruses, O = others (0 g , ffIYCOPlaSmaS,
A
B,F
B, F,V,O
B,F,V
B,V
B,F,V
B,V,O
B,V,O
B,V,O
vlrolds)
SOURCE Based on data from R P Kahn, “Technologies To Ma!ntaln Biological Dlvers!ty Assessment of Plant Quarantine Practices, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985
Table 7-3.—Storage Technologies for Germplasm of Different Plants
Plant group
Cereals and grain legumes
(wheat, corn, barley, rice, soybean)
Forage legumes and grasses
(alfalfa, orchardgrass, bromegrass, clover)
Vegetables
(tomato, bean, onion, carrot, lettuce)
Forest trees
(pines, firs, hardwoods)
Roots and tubers
(potato, sweet potato, tropical yam, aroids)
Temperate fruit and nuts
(apple, grape, peach, strawberry, raspberry)
Tropical fruit and nuts
(avocado, banana, date, citrus, papaya, cashew)
Ornamental
(carnation, zinnia, lilac, rhododendron)
Oilseeds
(soybean, sunflower, peanut, oilpalm, rape)
New crops
(jojoba, amaranth, guayule)
Storage
form b
Field
collections
Storage technology
In vitro
cool
culture temperature
seeds
seeds
plants
seeds
plants
seeds
plants
seeds
plants
seeds
plants
seeds
plants
seeds
plants
seeds
plants
seeds
plants
x
X,R
x
R
x
R
x
X,R
x
X,R
x
R
x
X,R
x
R
x
X,R
Liquid
nit rogen
Collection c
x
R
B,A
x
x
x
R
x
R
B,A
A
B,A
A
B,A
B,A
B,A
A
B(?),A
A
A
A
A
A
B,A
A
B,A
A
R
x
R
x
R
x
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
x
R
R
x
R
R
x
ax ~ currently i n use, R = under research and development.
bRefers to source of materlafs for storage (e,g , plants are the source of materlais for initiating tissue Cultures
C B ~ base Collections available, A = active COllOCtlOnS available
SOURCE Adapted from L Towill, E Roos, and P C Stanwood, “Plant Germplasm Storage Technologies,” OTA comm!ssloned paper, 1985
R
180 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
Figure 702.— Maintenance Process of a
Plant Seed Bank
number
I
4
I
I
1
I
●
●
I
I
Cleaning
Drying
counting
1
REGENERATION
I
I
I
I
STORAGE
I
Ambient to cryogenic
temperatures
i
1
I
J
t
Unacceptable
bll{ty
I
I
Registration
When seeds arrive at a storage facility, passport information must be recorded and a number assigned to facilitate recordkeeping. Passport data may include information on the origin
of the sample, its source (if acquired from
another facility), and any pertinent physiological details that would aid storage. Data of interest to potential users, such as disease resistance, also may be included.
The information accumulated may reflect the
focus of a particular collection. The Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew, England, requires details on the location and habitat in which a wild
plant species was collected, an estimate of the
total number of plants represented by the sample, a taxonomic classification, and the location of a reference herbarium specimen. The
more detailed this preliminary information is,
the more useful the accession is for crop development or conservation.
Collections may receive the accessions of
another collection, thus duplicating materials.
Although such duplication does provide security against loss, the number of accessions held
by all collections does not reflect duplicates.
In barley, for example, the total of more than
280,000 accessions in storage is considerably
greater than the estimated 50,000 distinct accessions worldwide (70).
SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1986.
Processing
as seeds, in fields, or in greenhouse collections.
Pollen storage and in vitro plantlet cultures may
supplement storage of many of these species.
Finally, cryogenic storage (in liquid nitrogen)
and emerging DNA technologies may hold potential for improving maintenance of plants.
Conventional Seed Storage
Most agricultural crops held by the National
Plant Germplasm System (NPGS), international
centers, national programs, and private collections are maintained as seeds. The process of
conventional seed storage can be divided into
several steps: registration, processing, storage,
viability testing, and regeneration (figure 7-2).
Once registered, other data such as estimates
of the number of seeds received, viability in
terms of percentage of germination, and taxonomic identification must be obtained. In addition, seeds may require preparation, like cleaning and drying for storage.
Seeds are tested for germinating ability to determine if the sample is of high viability or
whether it must be planted to produce fresh
seed before storing (29,30,31,43).
To reduce moisture in seeds, procedures
using chemical desiccants have been developed
and are widely applied (111). Facilities with
large amounts of seeds to process, such as the
U.S. Plant Introduction Stations or the National
—
Seed Storage Laboratory (NSSL), use dehumidified rooms to reduce moisture.
Storage
Four factors affect seed storage: 1) moisture
content, 2) storage temperature, 3) storage
atmosphere, and 4) genetic composition of the
sample (4,87,88,89), Reduced moisture content
is considered the most crucial to maintaining
viability. In general, each l-percent decrease
in seed moisture between the 5- and 14-percent
range will double the lifespan of a seed sample.
Reduction of storage temperature also increases
seed longevity. A 50 decrease in temperature
between 0° and 50° C doubles longevity (89).
Control of storage atmosphere generally does
not provide significant advantages over manipulation of moisture and temperature, particularly when the latter is below freezing.
Genetics relate to differences between individual accessions or between individuals in a
mixed sample and cannot be altered to increase
longevity.
Viability Testing
Seeds must be tested periodically for viability. This information helps determine when an
accession needs to be grown-out to produce a
fresh sample of seeds. The most obvious test
is to germinate a portion of the seeds to estimate the viable percentage.
Viability testing involves placing seeds in
appropriate conditions (damp blotter paper,
agar medium, etc.] and counting the number
of seeds that germinate over a period of time.
However, if seeds are dormant, obtaining viability estimates can be difficult. Citrus species,
for example, were thought to have died when
prepared for conventional storage but were
shown instead to be dormant (82). Heating, cooling, lighting, and treatments (e. g., removal or
cracking of the seed coat) may be required to
overcome dormancy in some species.
Typically, 200 to 400 seeds are required for
viability testing (43). However, a sequential approach reduces the number needed for testing.
Forty seeds can be tested to determine whether
the accession should be regenerated, stored, or
Ch. 7—Maintaining Plant Diversity Offsite . 181
—
whether another 40 seeds are needed (30,42).
But a small sample of seeds may need to undergo numerous tests before an answer is reached,
which may take longer than testing a single
large sample.
Other tests–involving dyes, physiological
tests, or biochemical assays—have been developed to determine seed viability (89). The validity of such tests relies on the ability to demonstrate a correlation with actual germination
rates. These tests can be useful to determine
if dormancy or inappropriate storage conditions are producing misleading results (30).
Some, such as the tetrazolium dye test for a
range of seeds, or X-ray contrast with heavy
metals in tree seeds, have been widely used
(30,89). others, such as enzyme tests, provide
information useful for the study of seed physiology but are more expensive and difficult to
perform than standard germination tests.
Preserving the genetic variability in seed accessions is a major concern in offsite collections, Many accessions, particularly those of
primitive landraces and wild species, are genetically diverse populations and display considerable genetic variation between individuals
in a sample. Genetic differences in storage lifespan can mean that the genetics of a population could be altered by decline in viability
(86,87,88,108).
Although seeds generally should be regenerated when germination drops 15 percent, practical considerations of labor, space, and time
can delay this step (32,43,83,108), One recent
report stated that NSSL does not regenerate
samples until viability has dropped 40 percent
(113). This practice, however, may be based
more on lack of resources than on scientific
considerations.
Regeneration
Variations in growth requirements for species and even for varieties within a species complicate the growing-out of seed. In beans, for
example, different accessions may require
different conditions, e.g., daylength, for growing out. Thus, both subtropical and temperate
sites must be used to grow-out a range of bean
182
Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
credit: OTA
Conventional seed storage. Seeds are stored in airtight containers (top photo), then placed in drawers (bottom left) in
refrigerated rooms (bottom right). Many storage facilities increasingly use laminated foil envelopes instead of cans.
Ch. 7–Maintaining Plant Diversity Offsite
●
183
varieties, Other factors such as control of pollination can also be important for regenerating certain crops (95,108). Wind-pollinated accessions can readily cross with others, and thus,
individual accessions must be grown in widely
separated fields to ensure that they are not genetically mixed.
Genetic loss by natural selection during growout may be undetected in regenerated seed. At
NSSL, the designated grower is responsible for
ensuring that the sample returned is from plants
grown under conditions that would minimize
genetic loss. No testing beyond visual examination and a viability test of the returned sample is conducted.
Grow-outs are expensive in terms of facilities
and personnel, and they subject stored materials to damage from pests, pathogens, and environmental conditions, which may reduce
genetic diversity in an accession. But the most
effective and least expensive way to maintain
diversity is to reduce the frequency of regeneration through technologies that extend storage.
Cryogenic Storage of S e e d s
A critical factor in cryogenic storage is the
amount of water in the tissue to be frozen. Most
orthodox seeds can be easily stored at cryogenic
temperatures because their water content is low
enough to avoid damage associated with freezing (99,100,102,108),
Cryogenic technologies may be able to extend
the storage life of orthodox seeds to more than
a century, which would greatly reduce the need
for viability testing and regeneration (100,102,
121,122).
However, limitations on cryogenic storage
exist for some species depending on a plant’s
seed coat, oil or moisture content, and seed size
(108). Some plants, such as plums and coffee,
have orthodox seeds that tolerate low moisture
levels but are sensitive to cooling below –4 OO
C (100). If cooled or warmed incorrectly, many
seeds can crack (100). Seeds as big as cotton
seeds (about eight seeds per gram) are appropriate for cryogenic storage (99,100,102). Larger
seeds, such as beans, can also be frozen, but in-
creased costs, due in part to the greater amount
of space required, may reduce or eliminate potential cost-savings over mechanical refrigeration (102).
This method could hold considerable cost advantages with regard to operating a seed bank
and regenerating seed (table 7-4) (102). Cryogenic storage facilities will cost about the same
to establish, but operation over time would be
cheaper, in part due to reduced need for viability testing and grow-out. Investment in a
facility to produce liquid nitrogen might be necessary in some areas, but the operational savings in the seed bank could allow recovery of
costs in 6 to 14 years (99).
Major obstacles to this technology are the lack
of appropriate facilities and scientific exper-
184 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
Table 7-4.—Estimated Costsa of Conventional
and Cryogenic Storage
Source
Storage for 100 years
Conventional b Cryogenic
Storage:
Includes equipment, supplies,
and replacement of
equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Operations:
Includes utilities, equipment
maintenance, liquid nitrogen
coolant, and monitoring of
viability (every 5 years for
mechanical; every 50 years
for cryogenic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Seed replacement:
From regenerating when
viability or sample size
declines (four times for
mechanical; one time for
cryogenic) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Total 100-year cost
Average yearly cost
$ 5.30
$5.00
60.00
11.80
100.00
$165.30
25.00
$41.80
$
$0.42
1.65
%osts for accession of onion (a species that survives poorly under conventional
storage). Savings for other crop species-particularly those with large seeds—
may be less dramatic or nonexistent,
bAssume s
conditions of – 18° C and seed moisture of 4 to 7 Percent,
under which storage life of onion seed is approximately 25 years.
storage
SOURCE: P.C. Stanwood and L.N. Bass, “Seed Germplasm Preservation Using
Liquid Nitrogen,” Seed Science and Technology 9:423-437, 1981.
tise at many locations, particularly in developing countries, and the lack of scientific data
on genetic stability of seeds stored cryogenically. Certainly the capacity to use cryogenic
technologies should be part of any newly constructed facility for seed storage.
FieId Maintenanence and Controlled
Environmomts
Accessions may also be stored as vegetative
plants in field collections or controlled environments e.g., greenhouses (108). This approach
may be necessitated by physiological restrictions on storing seed, by the need to preserve
particular combinations of characters or by inabilities to obtain satisfactory seed samples
(81,108). Field collections can preserve the
genetic diversity of many aquatic plants; tropical species (e.g., coconut, cacao, mango, or rubber trees); tropical forest trees; and some temperate trees (e.g., oaks) —which all have
recalcitrant seeds (28,42,63,64,84).
Botanic gardens and arboretums maintain diverse field collections, though many institutes
focus on a narrow taxonomic group, as mentioned earlier. Arboretums conserve limited
samples of tree and shrub species with very
small natural gene pools that are under pressure of destruction, or plants with distinctive
characteristics (34,69,80). In the United States,
establishing a network among botanic gardens
and arboretums, facilitated by the newly formed
Center for Plant Conservation at the Arnold Arboretum at Harvard University, could allow a
division of labor and sharing of expertise that
would enable more species and more genetic
diversity within species to be maintained (34,
106).
Trees in field collections, however, may have
been selected for economically important traits
and thus may only represent a narrow range
of the total diversity available for a species.
CAMCORE, for example, collects seeds only
from coniferous trees with commercially valuable trunk characteristics (i.e., tall and straight)
(25). Trees in field collections, nonetheless, can
be useful sources of seeds for restoration and
reforestation projects (8).
Many clonally propagated crops are maintained in field collections. Clonally propagated
crops include fruit and nut species; many ornamental, such as roses; and some root and
tuber crops important to developing countries
(e.g., sweet potato, cassava, and tare). Seeds
may be available for many varieties. However,
most of these crops are genetically heterogeneous, and clones grown from their seeds
may not retain the particular qualities of the
parent plants (e.g., the seeds of a Macintosh
apple do not produce Macintosh apple trees,
but rather a range of trees that result from
recombination of the genes in the Macintosh
apple). The Centro International de la Papa
(CIP) in Peru, for instance, maintains an active
field collection of potato landraces but also has
abase collection of seeds from these accessions
(50).
Pollen Storage
Pollen is not a conventional form of germplasm storage, but information is available on
preserving pollen for breeding purposes for
many species, particularly for crossing materials that flower at different times (107,108). A
population of pollen grains collected from genetically different individuals would contain
the nuclear genes; cytoplasmic (nonnuclear)
genetic factors would not be transmitted, however, because these are not inherited through
the pollen (108).
Pollen can be separated into types that are
tolerant or intolerant of drying (81,107,108).
Tolerant types store best when dried and maintained at low temperatures, much like orthodox seeds. But the pollen of many species does
not survive low moisture or freezing temperatures. Some intolerant types, notably maize,
have been successfully preserved in liquid nitrogen, but data on success are sparse (3,107,
108).
Considerable information is still needed on
stability and longevity of storing pollen, however, before its use in storage will be possible
(108). Pollen is undesirable as the sole propagule
for base collection storage because whole plants
cannot generally be obtained from it (81,108).
In addition, pollen storage does not circumvent
potential plant health problems because some
pathogens are pollen-borne,
Biotechnology
Biotechnology provides additional opportunities to improve offsite maintenance of plants.
Of particular relevance are in vitro cultures of
plants that are now maintained in field collections. And developments in genetic engineering may make the storage of isolated DNA practical in the future.
186
Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
In Vitro Culture
In vitro cultures of plants have been advocated for a variety of species, especially those
that are clonally propagated (20,53,56). Although this technology can be adapted to many
species (16,33,93), it is generally unnecessary
for those that have orthodox seeds. However,
the methods may be necessary if there is a need
to maintain specific genetic types, if seed
progeny are highly variable, if plants have long
juvenile stages (e.g., many tree species), or if
seeds are lacking (e.g., clonal crops such as
banana, tare, and sugarcane) (20).
In vitro maintenance is defined as the growing of cells, tissues, organs, or plantlets in glass
or plastic vessels under sterile conditions (108).
when plants originate from intact isolated
meristems, the cultures may be free of pathogens (108). The media for growing in vitro cultures may vary among species and among individuals within a species. By altering the
balance of nutrients and growth regulators in
the media, in vitro cultures can be made to develop unorganized growth (termed callus), produce multiple shoots or plantlets, form structures similar to the embryo in a seed, or develop
roots to enable transfer to field conditions. Not
all plants, however, are amenable to growth or
manipulation by in vitro culture (108).
One aspect of in vitro technology of particular concern for plant germplasm conservation
is the occurrence of genetic modification (somaclonal variation) in plants derived from
callus cultures (67,90). Such variation is considered useful in the development of new varietal characteristics but is unacceptable when
preservation of specific genotypes is the objective. Although it is known that certain types
of cultures and conditions, such as callus cultures, can produce higher frequencies of somaclonal variation, the cellular processes that produce them are not well understood (90,120).
Furthermore, growing cultured plants to maturity remains the only satisfactory way to examine the consequences of such changes. Consequently, each method of culture must be carefully
evaluated before it is applied. For germplasm
preservation, in vitro plants directly derived
Board
Genetic Resources
vitro culture could become an important method of
long-term maintenance for plants with seeds that cannot
be stored under dry, cold conditions and for plants that
can only be maintained in field collections.
from buds or shoot-tips are considered most
suitable.
No in vitro long-term base collections of agricultural crops exist at present, although some
active collections are being developed: potato
at CIP, cassava at the International Center for
Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) in Colombia, and
yam and sweet potato at the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture in Nigeria (122,
123). The NPGS Clonal Repositories are investigating in vitro cultures as backup to field collections of some crops (108).
In vitro cultures can be stored under normal
growth conditions, in reduced temperatures or
Ch. 7—Maintaining Plant Diversity Offsite
in a medium that inhibits growth (53,56,119,
120,122), Cultures can thus be maintained for
weeks to months without subculture (i.e., transfer to fresh medium). However, all treatments
that retard growth put additional stress on the
culture, which may increase the potential for
somaclonal variants.
In vitro culture techniques could be important for the long-term maintenance of plants
with recalcitrant seeds. One recent proposal
has been to excise the embryo from the seed
and store it under cryogenic conditions. The
embryo could be thawed and then grown and
multiplied in vitro (40). Research in cooperation with the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew,
England, has demonstrated the feasibility of this
procedure for two tree species (Araucaria
husteinii and Quercus robur). Further research
is needed to apply it to other plants with recalcitrant seeds (4o).
Cryogenic storage may help avoid the stresses
of continuous in vitro culture (49,62,90,121,122,
123), Considerably greater attention would be
needed in preparation, freezing, storing, thawing, and subsequent culturing than is the case
for orthodox seeds. Although some generalizations can be made, methods acceptable to one
species or variety may not be satisfactory for
others. However, research has demonstrated
that in vitro-cultured shoot-tips from some herbaceous plants (e.g., potato, carnation, and cassava); berries (e. g., strawberry, raspberry, and
blueberry); and buds of some woody species
(e.g., apple) can survive cryogenic storage (108).
Many questions remain before cryogenic
storage of in vitro cultures is widely applied.
Among these is whether a single procedure can
be developed that works well for an array of
plants. Further, it is not yet understood how
the process of freezing and thawing affects
regeneration of cultures or their genetic constitution (108,121). Additional investigation for
individual crops is needed, and current technologies have not yet been adapted for handling
the large numbers of specimens that might be
expected in an offsite facility.
●
187
DNA Storage
Future storage technologies may include, as
a supplemental strategy, the preservation of the
isolated genetic information (DNA and RNA)
of plants. Existing technologies can locate, excise, and reinsert genes. In some cases, these
genes retain nearly normal function (75,108).
A much better understanding of gene structure,
function, and regulation is needed, however,
before isolated DNA can be used for germplasm
storage (76,108).
Management of Stored Materials
Offsite collections of plants must be well managed to guard against loss of materials and to
use financial and technological resources most
efficiently. Some duplication between collections can prevent catastrophic loss, but excessive redundancy can waste resources. Disease
organisms that might be brought into a collection by new accessions need to be managed.
Finally, information on the accessions must be
easily available both to managers and users.
Duplication of Collections
Duplication of collections provides the best
insurance against natural catastrophes, pests,
diseases, mechanical failures, or abandonment
(81,108), CIP protects its collection of landrace
potatoes with field plantings at other locations,
with seed storage, and with in vitro culture (50).
At the NPGS Clonal Repositories (see ch, 9),
greenhouse collections back-up field-maintained
collections of fruit and nut species. Duplication is equally critical for seed banks, where
malfunctioning of a mechanical compressor
can result in loss of cooling.
Plants in an offsite collection also can be lost
if institutional priorities change, or if the person responsible for the species or collection
leaves (108). The situation is particularly critical for older varieties of fruits, berries, and
vegetables that may be held only by private individuals or groups (112). For wild species, too,
a large collection is frequently the result of the
188 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
interest of one person or a few individuals.
when these efforts cease, a valuable collection
can rapidly deteriorate. Information on the focus and extent of various collections can aid
coordination of duplication and minimize the
potential for loss (34,112).
Assessing Diversity in a Collection
The diversity of a collection can be assessed
by collecting morphologic, biochemical, or
phytochemical information, frequently called
characterization data.
Most characterization data can help distinguish one accession from another but not assess potentially useful traits. This is particularly
true for assays of proteins or DNA, which give
little indication of such traits as crop yield, disease, or stress resistance.
Morphological Assessment.—Assessing the
morphology of an accession is the first step to
developing accurate characterization, Morphological information for wild species is important for taxonomic identification and forms the
essential baseline from which all other data are
related (68). The information on agricultural
crops can be used to distinguish individual accessions, as well as identify them taxonomically
(114). However, data are on gross appearance
and do not reflect the full genetic composition
of an accession.
Care must be taken to ensure reliable results
when plants are grown-out for morphological
assessment (10). Spacing of plants must be adequate to ensure that results do not reflect overcrowding, for example. Samples thought to be
duplicates are frequently grown side by side
for comparison (13). Biological factors, such as
the potential for cross-pollination among accessions, must be taken into consideration.
The major constraints to assessing morphology are adequate space, funds, and trained personnel. Though not technically difficult, such
assessments require attention to possible environmental effects and may take a significant
amount of time to perform, analyze, and record,
Biochemical Analysis.—Analysis of proteins
or DNA using electrophoretic techniques is
another way to assess diversity (94). Isoenzymes,
the protein products of individual genes, can
change in number or chemical structure when
the genes for them are altered, and these
changes can be detected by an electrophoretic
assay, Examination of DNA can allow comparison of the entire genetic composition of accessions.
Isoenzyme analysis on either starch or polyacrylamide gels has probably been the most
popular technique for assessing genetic diversity. Surveys of isoenzyme polymorphism have
been performed for maize, wheat, tomato, pea,
and barley (94,114). In addition, surveys have
been done on hundreds of other cultivars and
wild species (94,104, 105,114).
A potential application of this technology is
the development of isoenzyme “fingerprints”
to permit reliable identification of specific plant
varieties to certify breeding materials, to isolate genetically similar cultivars, or to monitor
otherwise undetected genetic changes in accessions. Electrophoretic analysis has been used
to detect duplication in some offsite collections,
such as the CIP collection of potato germplasm
(50) and is increasing in application at NPGS
facilities (19). However, since the data are generally restricted to a few biochemical characteristics and do not reflect performance data
or the full genetic composition of an accession,
such analysis has been considered risky (39).
Two-dimensional electrophoresis is used to
separate complex protein mixtures such as
those found in seed or leaf extracts so that several hundred proteins can be distinguished in
a single gel (9,17,114). The results can be difficult to reproduce, however. The technique requires specialized equipment and may be too
lengthy for routine use because only one sample can be evaluated at a time. Managers of offsite collections are unlikely to have the time,
expertise, or resources to use this technique routinely.
Restriction fragment length polymorphisms
(RFLPs) have been used to directly examine
Ch. 7—Maintaining Plant Diversity Offsite
189
DNA. DNA is “cut” enzymatically (using restriction endonuclease enzymes) into pieces or
restriction fragments that can be separated on
electrophoretic gels. Because RFLPs represent
the whole genetic composition of the sample,
comparing individual analyses within a sample or among accessions would indicate the
variability that exists. The techniques, however,
are expensive and require technicaI expertise
to execute and interpret. Thus, use of RFLPs
appears limited at present to appropriately
equipped laboratories (114). RFLPs have been
useful in developing detailed genetic maps for
use in breeding programs (48) but are not routinely applied to characterization of germplasm.
pensive instrumentation. These technologies
have been used extensively, however, by scientists studying the taxonomy and systematic
of plants (114) and by university and industry
scientists interested in developing potential
uses for wild plants in medicine and industry.
Phytochemical Analysis.—Phytochernical
analysis deals with the distribution and chemistry of organic compounds synthesized by plants
Stored seed can be severely damaged by rodents, insects, or fungus (58). With rodents, the
major damage is not from consumption but
rather from the pests scattering and mixing up
different accessions (58). Many insect, fungal,
and bacterial contaminants can be controlled
with the use of chemical fumigants, although
such treatments might also harm the seeds (58,
59,81). Sanitary storage facilities that obviate
the need for such treatment are therefore preferable (81). when dried seeds are kept at subfreezing temperatures, the potential risk is minimal
(58,101),
(114).
Analysis involves three general processes: extraction, isolation, and identification (44,114).
plant materials are homogenized in aqueous
alcohol, then purified by evaporation of the alcohol and chemical partitioning to remove contaminating substances and isolate the chemicals of interest (114). Chemicals can then be
identified by chromatographic or spectroscopic
techniques (114).
During the past 10 years, the major technological advance in separation and purification
of organic chemical mixtures has been the development of high-performance liquid chromatography (H PLC). HPLC is more rapid than
other chromatographic procedures and can isolate a range of plant chemicals. Developing
appropriate HPLC procedures, however, requires considerable investment of funds and
time. Some facilities of NPGS, however, are
using techniques such as HPLC to help characterize germplasm (19).
Recent advances in microcomputers have
provided sophisticated, low-cost spectrophotometers that can identify plant chemicals (114).
Other techniques, such as nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy and mass spectrometry,
also can determine chemical structure but they
require considerable technical expertise and ex-
Controlling Pests and Pathogens
in Collections
Managing stored samples requires efforts to
ensure that seeds or plants are not lost to pests
or pathogens. Because a collection may distribute seeds to other regions, precautions must
be taken to reduce the possibility of sending
pests or pathogens as well (61).
The risk of disseminating pathogens is considerably greater for crops maintained through
clonal propagation (59,61). Some facilities with
a specific focus may have greater expertise with
a crop and its diseases than a national quarantine facility concerned with all potential introductions. Cooperation between scientists and
quarantine officials can improve control of
pathogens and aid technology development.
lmformation Management
Offsite collections are repositories not only
of germplasm but also of information, This
information can aid collection management,
can provide more efficient access to specific
accessions, and might help develop collection
strategies.
The current focus has been on standardization of terminology in order to facilitate exchange between collections and to provide
190 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
more consistent information to users (117). Development of uniform crop descriptors that include information about the storage history of
an accession as well as data on the original
collector, collection site, vegetative and reproductive characteristics, disease or pest susceptibility, and biochemical characteristics (e.g.,
isoenzyme profiles) is important for consistent
and accurate information (7,98,117). This task
for NPGS has been assigned to crop advisory
committees (see ch. 9).
Several data storage and retrieval methods
are now used (65). A collection of only a few
hundred accessions might use file cards or
books. As the collection grows, a computerbased system may be more appropriate. Large
collections, such as the Royal Botanic Gardens
in England, have developed systems adapted
to their specific needs (97). The nature of the
data in computer-based information management systems depends on whether the materials being stored are agricultural crops (1,125)
or wild species (34,97).
The Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN) of NPGS is an example of a large
information system designed to coordinate data
from multiple collections in the United States.
GRIN, once fully established, is expected to provide information on all accessions held by
NPGS. Although the capacity of the system is
more than adequate, entering information is,
after several years, still in the preliminary stages.
OTA has found GRIN praised by managers of
NPGS facilities for its recordkeeping operations
but criticized by potential users because detailed information is unavailable on individual
accessions and obtaining results of searches can
take considerable time. GRIN at present does
not collect information on privately held collections of agricultural plants, such as those coordinated by the Seed Savers Exchange or the
North American Fruit Explorers, nor does it
hold information on wild species.
USING PLANTS STORED OFFSITE
Collections are used for crop development
as well as conservation. Plant breeders and scientists who may depend on the genetic diversity in such collections require specific information about accessions to select appropriate
plants. Genes in selected accessions are incorporated into improved crop varieties using
traditional plant breeding practices. In addition, biotechnology may provide methods that
could enable development of improved crop varieties or more efficient use of genes in plants.
Evaluation of plant germplasm involves the
examination of accessions for the presence and
quality of particular traits that may be of use
to crop breeders.
In general, evaluation examines traits that
may be genetically quantitative (i.e., controlled
by many genes) and subject to environmental
influence, such as drought tolerance or earli-
ness of maturity in a fruiting crop. This assessment can be complicated in a genetically variable accession because all individuals may not
express the trait equally (81). Further, changes
in conditions (e.g., appearance of a new disease) can require further evaluation for new
traits. In addition, new accessions must be
evaluated. Thus, evaluation may be considered
a never-ending task (81).
Evaluations vary according to the species or
trait being examined and may be both lengthy
and complex (37). A test for yield potential, for
example, would require different growing conditions than a test for genes that enable plants
to grow in acid soils. And sufficient space to
grow plants to maturity is needed, along with
trained personnel to design the tests and to analyze results (81). The time required too can be
considerable. Testing the wheat held by the U.S.
National Small Grains Collection for resistance
to stem and leaf rust, for example, is expected
to require more than 10 years (96). Evaluation
Ch. 7—Maintaining Plant Diversity Offsite
of some traits may require repeating tests over
several years and in different regions (81).
Evaluation has been perceived as a serious
deficiency in the overall effort to maintain crop
germplasm (23,37,78,108,117). Insufficient information has meant accessions have been underused. However, the situation has been improving (81,108). International Agricultural
Research Centers have evaluated many of their
accessions for important traits, chiefly disease
and pest resistance, yield, and quality factors
(13,50,108). In the United States, the four regional plant introduction stations (see ch. 9)
have included examination for several agriculturally important traits in their preliminary
characterizations. This is not, however, sufficient to meet all the needs of users, and more
extensive efforts are necessary (108).
Although the usefulness of a collection may
depend on its evaluations, questions remain as
to who has responsibility for this task. Collection managers might be able to gather morphological data, but they may not be able to perform the lengthy and detailed trials needed to
evaluate traits. Further, it has been argued that
such evaluations are best done under the conditions in which they will be used because expression may be altered by environmental differences (36). It would seem, therefore, that
evaluation trials for specific traits are best performed by the breeders who require those traits.
Duplicating efforts could be minimized by putting results into centralized database systems—
a proposed function of the GRIN system in the
United States,
Traditional
Breeding
Traditional breeding typically involves identifying particular genes or characteristics and
incorporating them into existing varieties. Crop
development through breeding, a major contributor to modern gains in agricultural production, is a time-consuming process: It may
take 10 to 15 years to develop a single new variety (box 7-C).
Traditional breeding has provided as much
as 60 percent of the production increases of
many agricultural crops (22,24,35,77,124). Never-
●
191
theless, the process must continue in order to
sustain agricultural yields—pests and diseases
adapt to new varieties, and the needs of growers
and consumers constantly change (77).
Traditional breeding involves several basic
steps: 1) locate a genetically stable trait (e.g.,
yield, pest resistance, or stress tolerance); 2) isolate plants with the most desired expression of
the trait; 3) breed genes into breeding lines of
plants similar to those that will be improved
to provide more usable material; and 4) cross
these plants with other breeding lines to produce plants from which improved crop varieties can be selected (41,81).
The third step, called developmental breeding, is important because the desired trait may
be located in a wild species or variety that is
difficult to cross with domesticated ones. This
is the case, for example, with genetic resistance
to some 27 serious diseases of the tomato (81).
wild species or landraces may have different
growth requirements that make crossing them
with other varieties difficult. Developmental
breeding overcomes such differences but may
require growing plants at multiple locations.
Incorporation of genes from over 500 exotic
sorghums, for example, required growth in two
locations because the exotics required shorter
days to flower than commercial U.S. varieties.
A cooperative effort, therefore, was established
between the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and the USDA Federal Station in Mayaguez,
Puerto Rico, to perform the crosses and test the
progeny (48,81).
The major constraint to traditional breeding
is its dependence on the sexual process of
plants. Multiple crossings and testing of offspring may take years. Molecular biological
techniques to locate and map genes in plants
may greatly shorten the time needed for breeding improved varieties (6).
Biotechnological Improvement
Biotechnology provides greater precision and
speed in the manipulation of genes by avoiding the sexual reproductive process (24,41,75).
Three general areas have potential impact on
the use of stored plant diversity: 1) somaclonal
—.
Ch. 7—Maintaining Plant Diversity Offsite
●
193
Table 7-5.—Somaclonal Variation in Economically Important Plant Species
Plant
Oats (Avena sativa)
Wheat (Trificurn aesfivurn)
Rice (Oryza sativa)
Sugarcane (Saccharum
officinale)
Corn (Zea rnays)
Potato (Solanurn
tuberuosurri)
Tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum)
Alfalfa (A4edicago sativa)
Brassicas (Brassica spp.)
aseed = lnherlted
Source of tissue
Immature embryo,
apical meristem
Immature embryo
Transmission a
Seed
Characters
Plant height, heading date, leaf striping
Plant height, spike shape, maturity
tillering, leaf wax giliadins, amylase
Tiller number, panicle size, seed fertility,
Seed embryo
flowering date, plant height
Disease resistance, auricle length,
Various
isoenzyme alterations, sugar yield
Immature embryo
Endosperm and seedling mutants,
pathogen toxin resistance, DNA
sequence, changes in mitochondria
Protoplasm leaf callus
Tuber shape, yield, maturity date, plant
form, stem, leaf, and flower structure,
disease resistance
Plant height, leaf size, yield grade index,
Anthers, protoplasts,
alkaloids, reducing sugars, leaf
leaf callus
chlorophyll
Leaves, petiole length, plant form and
Immature ovaries
height, dry matter yield
Flowering time, growth form, waxiness,
Anthers, embryos,
meristems
— glucosinolates, disease tolerance
Seed
Seed
Vegetable
Seed
Vegetable
Seed
Vegetable
Seed
in seeds of variant plants: vegetable = transmitted to CiOfldly reproduced Plants
SOURCE W R Scowcroft, S A. Ryan, R I S Brettel, and P J Larkin, “Somaclonal Vanatlon A ‘New’ Genettc Resource,” Crop Genet(c
Eva/uat(on, J H W Holden and J T Wlll!ams (eds ) (London” George Allen & Unwin, 1964)
and tissues may not regenerate into whole
plants or may produce abnormal or sterile
plants (75).
Progress in developing somaclonal variation
for plant improvement has been promising for
a few plant species (5,90,92). However, its general application remains unproven. Further, it
is not yet possible to select through in vitro culture many valuable traits, such as yield or quality characters. This inability reflects a basic lack
of knowledge of the genetic mechanisms controlling many such traits (38).
Somatic Hybridization
A report conducted more than a decade ago
on the fusion of leaf protoplasts (cells from
which the ceil walls have been enzymatically
removed) from two species of tobacco heralded
exciting possibilities (11). The process, termed
somatic hybridization, held promise of bridging many barriers to hybridization. Questions
of whether “impossible hybrids” could be obtained were partially answered with reports of
a successful protoplasm fusion from a tomato
and potato (72). Unfortunately, as with a hybrid sexually produced 50 years earlier by crossing radish and cabbage, the resulting plant ex-
Resources” Conservation and
hibited the least desirable characteristics of
each parent and was sterile (75).
Research on irradiation and protoplasm fusion
shows promise. By irradiating one set of protoplasts, the genetic material is broken into
short sequences, some of which will make its
way into the fusion partner. The technique,
with considerable development, may eventually enable transfer of genes between sexually
incompatible species.
Recent studies show the potential for transferring cellular organelles with their genetic information (chloroplasts and mitochondria) to
other species (15,41,75). This technique may be
useful in the transfer of genes for the limited
number of traits (e.g., photosynthetic efficiency,
herbicide tolerance, cytoplasmic male sterility)
found in these organelles.
Application of somatic hybridization has
been limited to plants from three families:
Solonaceae (e.g., potato, tomato, tobacco);
Cruciferaceae (e.g., cabbage, rape); and Umbelliferaceae (e.g., carrots) (75). Regeneration of
whole plants from protoplasts often remains
an obstacle because little is known about the
culture conditions needed to cause protoplasts
194 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
or undifferentiated tissue to regenerate into
whole plants (41,75,111).
Recombinant DNA Technologies
The technologies associated with recombinant DNA allow insertion of specific genetic
information into plants to produce altered characteristics. Basic principles of the technologies
have been discussed in earlier OTA studies
(109,111). Current constraints relate largely to
inabilities to culture and regenerate isolated
cells of most plant species (41,75).
Genetic engineering techniques may allow
scientists to develop, by gene transfer, new agricultural varieties (75), but considerable scientific development is needed before such technologies can become routine. Further, genetic
engineering technologies face legal, social, and
political questions in light of warnings that potential products might cause health, environmental, or economic problems. With continued
research, genetic engineering could augment,
but not substantially replace, standard breeding practices.
NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES
In the past 10 years, new technologies for
germplasm collection, maintenance, and use
have been developed (108). Improved germplasm maintenance in the United States will
require not only the addition of new technologies, but careful planning for facilities and
resources to support them. Determining the appropriateness of a particular technology involves consideration of the biology of the species, the reliability of the technology, the effect
of the technology on a collection’s composition,
and costs. This section discusses several areas
of offsite maintenance that need attention and
the opportunities for doing so.
Develop a Standard Operating
procedure
Studies have only recently begun to systematically address problems of records maintenance, regeneration procedures, seed-drying
techniques, storage, liability testing conditions,
or improper management (21,30,31,43). This
assessment has highlighted numerous appropriate procedures. Implementation of these
technologies in the United States and internationally could provide a basis for improving
maintenance in offsite collections and developing appropriate avenues for training personnel.
Standard operating procedures for maintaining offsite collections of plants could be devel-
oped that include newly developed technologies
and incorporate additional procedures as they
are developed. Such procedures could be developed by a task force composed of representatives of government, industry, and academia.
The task force could specifically consider the
use of technologies by the National Plant Germplasm System.
Development of recommendations will not
assure improvement of germplasm maintenance in existing U.S. collections. Issues such
as the need for additional storage space at NSSL
and implementation of better viability testing
and regeneration protocols must be addressed
by increased funds if necessary. A plan to improve storage and maintenance in NPGS collections should be drawn up, therefore, that
would address both the needs for new facilities
and support of basic operations. Such a plan
could be developed by USDA with or without
the suggested task force, or by a separate committee drawn from sectors served by NPGS.
Storage
Cryogenic techniques could greatly extend
the storage time of seeds and could reduce costs
associated with monitoring seed viability and
regenerating samples. USDA funding of research on the effects of cryogenic storage could
increase the number of species that can be
maintained and allow investigation of concerns
about genetic stability.
Ch. 7—Maintaining Plant Diversity Offsite
In vitro plants can be used for a range of species with recalcitrant seeds or for those that
must be maintained as clones. However, the
techniques are not now used extensively for
germplasm storage, and uncertainties about
genetic stability in the in vitro environment
have been noted. Cryogenic technologies could
be particularly important, but they require further development.
Funds to develop technologies for maintaining plants in offsite collections are already provided through the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) to NPGS researchers. These efforts
could be enhanced by making funds available
to researchers outside USDA on a competitive
basis. As an alternative, the USDA/Competitive
Research Grants Office could develop a program that would focus on germplasm maintenance and the application of technology.
Characterization and evaluation of
Offsite Collections
Characterization and evaluation data are not
available for most plants held by NPGS, but the
development of descriptors by crop advisory
committees (CACS) (see ch. 9) will provide guidelines for preliminary characterizations of many
crops. Technologies for biochemical characterization exist, and consideration should be given
to ones that are appropriate for particular crops.
Further, careful consideration of the agronomic
traits to be evaluated will be necessary.
Improving characterization and evaluation
data will require additional funding and personnel. A 10-year NPGS program to provide
detailed evaluations of the genetic diversity and
potentially useful agronomic characters in cultivated species and their relatives might cost
$5 million annually. Such a program would
probably require increased collaboration between NPGS facilities and scientists to expand
the available expertise, develop a computerized
file for each accession, and increase involvement of CACS and breeders in determining
which agronomic traits to evaluate.
By examining analyses of the roles of CAC,
NPGS facilities, and users of NPGS in recording evaluation data, different ways to improve
●
195
present efforts might be revealed. Such an examination could be performed by an expert
committee appointed by USDA. Recommendations could include specific roles for components of NPGS and mechanisms for accomplishing those goals.
Grant funds could be made available through
ARS to researchers and breeders screening for
particular traits. Such funds could encourage
greater use of germplasm collections as well
as increase the information about accessions.
Data from evaluations could then become part
of the permanent GRIN record.
Maitenance of Endangered
wild Species
The efforts of botanic gardens and arboretums to obtain and store seeds or plants of endangered wild species have only recently been
coordinated. Additional funding for facilities
and personnel to develop and maintain such
collections will be needed. Further, each species presents a potentially unique set of requirements for maintenance and regeneration that
must be taken into account.
Funds have come in part from the Institute
for Museum Services (34). They have been used
for daily operations as well as to establish storage facilities. Continued funding could provide
for the maintenance of many endangered wild
plants, However, it has been estimated that
maintaining the 3,000 or so rare and endangered plant taxa will cost at least $1.2 million
annually (71).
One possibility is to expand the scope of
NPGS activities to include endangered wild
species. NPGS personnel have considerable expertise in offsite maintenance of plants, and
including endangered wild plants as a responsibility would take advantage of this expertise.
However, an enlargement of NPGS’S scope
would require additional funding for personnel and facilities. And because responsibilities
are currently divided among various parts of
NPGS on a crop-by-crop basis, an administrative mechanism for assigning responsibility for
a particular species would be needed.
I%
.
Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
As an alternative, an existing private organization, such as the Center for Plant Conservation (CPC), could become the mechanism
within NPGS for coordinating maintenance of
endangered wild plants. Funds could be designated through USDA/ARS for this purpose, and
CPC could be responsible for coordinating efforts and administering funds to cooperating
botanic gardens and arboretums.
Improve Movement of Germplasm
Through Quarantine
Technologies that identify viruses in imported plants could reduce delays associated
with the testing of a few plant species. Although
many potentially useful technologies exist, few
are applied routinely to quarantine testing, because USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) lacks sufficient trained
personnel, facilities, or operating funds needed
to implement a particular technology. Cooperation between APHIS and NPGS facilities could
enhance the technical expertise applied to
quarantine-testing and other solutions to improve quarantine efforts.
A panel representing APHIS, the research
community, and NPGS could be convened to
assess the adequacy of facilities and programs
relating to quarantine. It could make recommendations for implementing newer technologies, improving present facilities, constructing new facilities, and mechanisms for
promoting cooperation with NPGS facilities.
The panel could also redirect existing budgets
within USDA to address specific problems and,
if necessary, develop legislation for increasing
USDA appropriations to meet quarantine
needs. The panel might also consider mechanisms for incorporating new technologies and
the appropriateness of facilities and personnel
for performing them.
Promote Basic Research on
Maintenance and Use of Plant
Germplasm
Although technologies to maintain plants offsite have advanced considerably in recent
years, several fundamental questions still need
to be addressed.
In the past, storage has essentially referred
to orthodox seed storage. It is increasingly
apparent that new techniques for storage of
nontraditional forms of germplasm (e. g., recalcitrant seeds, pollen, and in vitro cultures) are
needed. Although cryogenic storage has been
used for several years on animals, its use with
plants has only recently been investigated.
Questions about the nature of genetic control
and the mechanisms involved in somaclonal
variation are as yet unresolved. These new storage technologies all require better understanding of developmental processes, of cell and seed
physiology, and of mechanisms of cellular deterioration and repair.
New methods for storage of naked DNA and
RNA and possible recovery of DNA from dead
cells could lead to a new concept in germplasm
conservation. Caution must be exercised, however, to ensure that limited funds are not disproportionately channeled into this high-technology area. If genetic conservation is a goal,
then existing technologies and those showing
promise should receive adequate funding before more speculative approaches are pursued.
Improved understanding of the biochemical,
genetic, and physiological control of development may lead to techniques for characterizing
and evaluating germplasm. The genetic control
of most important traits is not yet understood.
Additional research on the basic structure and
function of genes can also improve the biological knowledge necessary for genetic manipulation of plants.
Funding for research on germplasm has come
from several agencies. But research priorities
at the National Science Foundation (NSF) or
USDA’s Competitive Research Grants Office
(CRGO), however, generally do not encompass
projects that focus on germplasm maintenance.
Perhaps a new program within USDA/CRGO
or NSF could be created to address research
appropriate to germplasm maintenance and
use.
Ch. 7—Maintaining Plant Diversity Offsite 197
●
REFERENCES
1. Astley, D., “Management Systems at the National Vegetable Research Station Gene Bank, ”
Documentation of Genetic Resources: Information Handling Systems for Genebank Management, J. Konopka and J. Hanson (eds,) AGPG:
IBpGI?/85/76 (Rome: International Board for
Plant Genetic Resources, 1985),
2. Atchley, A. A., USDA/ARS Germplasm Resources
Laboratory, personal communications, May
23, 1986.
3. Barnabas, B., and Rajiki, E., “Storage of Maize
(Zea mays L.) Pollen in Liquid Nitrogen,” Euphytica 25:747-753, 1976.
4. Bass, L., “Seed Viability During Long-Term
Storage,” Horticultural Reviews, J. Janick (cd.)
(Westport: Avi Publishing Co,, 1980).
5. Berlin, J., and Sasse, “Selection and Screening Techniques for Plant Cell Culture, ” Piant
Cell Culture 31:99-131 (Berlin: Springer-Verlag,
1985).
6. Bishop, J. E., “New Genetic Technology Shortens
Time Required To Breed Food-Plant Varieties, ”
Wa]] Street Journal, May 17, 1986.
7. Blixt, S., and Williams, J.T. (eds.) Documentation of Genetic Resources: A Model (Rome: International Board for Plant Genetic Resources,
1982).
8. Bonner, F. T., “Technologies To Maintain Tree
Germplasm Diversity, ” OTA commissioned
paper, 1985.
9. Brown, J, W. S., and Flavell, R, B., “Fractionation of Wheat Giliadin and Glutenin Subunits
by Two-Dimensional Electrophoresis and the
Role of Group 6 and Group 2 Chromosomes
in Giliadin Synthesis, Theoretical and Applied Genetics 59:349-359, 1981. In: Weeden
and Young, 1985,
10. Burton and Davies, “Handling Germplasm of
Cross-pollinated Forage, ” Crop Genetic Resources: Conservation and Evaluation, J,H, W.
Holden and J.T. Williams (eds,) (London: George
Allen & Unwin, 1984].
11. Carlson, P. S., Smith, H. H., and Dearing, R. D.,
“Parasexual Interspecific Plant Hybridization,”
Proceedings, National Academy of Sciences,
U.S.A. 69:2292-2294, 1972. In: Orton, 1985.
12. Center for Plant Conservation, Recommendations for the Collection and Ex Situ Management of Germplasm Resources From Rare Wild
P/ants (Boston: CPC, 1986).
13, Chang, T. T., “The Role and Experience of an
International Crop-Specific Genetic Resources
Center, ” Conservation of Crop Germplasm: An
International Perspective (Madison, WI: Crop
Science Society of America, 1984).
14, Chiarappa, L., and Karpati, J. F., “Plant Quarantine and Genetic Resources, ” Crop Genetic Resources: Conservation and Evaluation, J.H, W.
Holden and J.T. Williams (eds.) (Boston: George
Allen & Unwin, 1984),
15. Cocking, E. C., “Use of Protoplasts: Potentials
and Progress, ” Gene Manipulation in Plant Improvement, J,P, Gustafson (cd.) (New York: Plenum Press, 1984). In: Orton, 1985.
16. Conger, B,V, (cd,), Cloning Agricultural Plants
Via In-Vitro Culture (Boca Raton, FL: CRC
Press, 1981).
17, Cremer, F., and Van de Wane, C., “Method for
Extraction of Proteins From Green Plant Tissue for Two-Dimensional Polyacrylamide Gel
Electrophoresis, ” Analytical Biochemistry
147:22-26, 1985. In: Weeden and Young, 1985.
18. de Bakker, I. G., “The Gene Bank, A New Concept, An Old Cause, ” Zaadlelangen 37:7-25,
1983,
19. Deitz, S. M,, director, Western Regional Plant
Introduction Station, personal communication, August 1986.
20. de Langhe, E. A, L., “The Role of In-vitro Techniques in Germplasm Conservation, ” Crop
Genetic Resources: Conservation and Evaluation, J.H.W. Holden and J,T. Williams (eds,)
(London: George Allen & Unwin, 1984).
21. Dickie, J, B,, Linington, S., and Williams, J. T.,
Seed Management Techniques for Genebanks.
AGPG:IBPGR/84/68 (Rome: International Board
for Plant Genetic Resources, 1984).
22, Duvick, D. N., “Genetic Rates of Gain in Hybrid Maize Yields During the Past 40 Years, ”
Maydica 22:187-196, 1977.
23. Duvick, D, N., “Genetic Diversity in Major
Farm Crops on the Farm and in Reserve, ” Economic Botany 38:161-178, 1984.
24. Duvick, D. N., “Plant Breeding: Past Achievements and Expectations for the Future, ” Economic Botany 40(3):289-297, 1986,
25, Dvorak, W. S., “Strategy for the Development
of Conservation Banks and Breeding Programs
for Coniferous Species from Central America
and Mexico, ” Proceedings of the Southern
Forests Tree Improvement Conference, 1983.
26. Dvorak, W, S,, director, Central America and
Mexico Coniferous Resources Cooperative
(CAMCORE), personal communication, May
1986.
27. Dvorak, W, S., and Laarman, J. G,, “Conserving
Igg . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
the Genes of Tropical Conifers,” Journal of Forestry 84:43-45, 1983.
28. Ellis, R. H., “Revised Table of Seed Storage
Characteristics,” Plant Genetic Resources Newsletter 58:16-33, 1984.
29. Ellis, R. H., “Information Required Within
Genetic Resources Centres To Maintain and
Distribute Seed Accessions, ” Documentation
of Genetic Resources: Information Handling
Systems for Genebank Management, J. Konopka
and J. Hanson (eds.) AGPG:IBpGR/85/76 (Rome:
International Board for Plant Genetic Resources,
1985).
30. Ellis, R. H., Hong, T. D., and Roberts, E. H.,
Handbook of Seed Technology for Gene Banks,
Volume I: Principles and Methodology, Handbooks for Gene Banks No. 2 (Rome: International Board for Plant Genetic Resources,
1985).
31. Ellis, R. H., Hong, T. D., and Roberts, E. H.,
Handbook of Seed Technology for Gene Banks,
Volume II: Compendium of Specific Germination Information and Test Recommendations,
Handbooks for Gene Banks No. 3 (Rome: International Board for Plant Genetic Resources,
1985).
32. Ellis, R. H., and Roberts, E. H., “Procedures for
Monitoring the Viability of Accessions During
Storage,” Crop Genetic Resources: Conservation and Evaluation, J.H.W. Holden and J.T.
Williams (eds.) (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1984).
33. Evans, D. A., Sharp, W. R., Ammirato, P. W., Yamada, Y. (eds.), Handbook of Plant Cell Cu)ture, Volume I (New York: Macmillan Press,
1983).
34. Falk, D. A., and Walter, K. S., “Networking To
Save Imperiled Plants,” Garden, January/February 1986.
35. Fehr, W.R. (cd.), “Genetic Contributions To
Yield Gains of Five Major Crop Plants, ” Crop
Science Society of America, Spec. Pub. No. 7,
1984.
36. Frankel, O. H., and Brown, A. D, H., “Plant
Genetic Resources Today: A Critical Appraisal,”
Crop Genetic Resources: Conservation and
Evaluation J.H.W. Holden and J.T. Williams
(eds.) (London: George Allen& Unwin, 1984).
37. Frey, K. J., Meredith, C. P., and Long, S. R.,
“Genetic Improvement,” Crop Productivity—
Research Imperatives Revisited, M. Gibbs and
C. Carlson (eds.), an international conference
held at Boyne Highlands Inn, MI, Oct. 13-18,
1985 and Airlie House, VA, Dec. 11-13, 1985.
38. Gibbs, M., and Carlson, C. (eds,), Crop Productivity–Research Imperatives Revisited, an
international conference held at Boyne Highlands Inn, MI, Oct. 13-18, 1985 and Airlie
House, VA, Dec. 11-13, 1985.
39, Goodman, M. M., Department of Crop Science,
University of North Carolina, Raleigh, personal communication, May 1986.
40. Grout, B. W. W., “Embryo Culture and Cryopreservation for the Conservation of Genetic
Resources of Species With Recalcitrant Seed,”
Plant Tissue Culture and Its Agricultural Applications, L.A. Withers and P.G. Alderson
(eds.) (London: Butterworths, 1986).
41. Hansen, M., Busch, L., Burkhardt, W. B., and
Lacy, L. R., “Plant Breeding and Biotechnology,” Bioscience 36:29-39, 1986.
42. Hanson, J., “The Storage of Seeds of Tropical
Tree Fruits,” Crop Genetic Resources: Conservation and Evaluation, J,H.W. Holden and J.T.
Williams (eds.) (London: George Allen& Unwin,
1984).
43. Hanson, J,, “Practical Manuals for Genebanks:
No. l,” Procedures for Handling Seeds in
Genebanks (Rome: International Board for
Plant Genetic Resources, 1985).
44. Harborne, J. B., Phytochemical Methods (London: Chapman & Hall, 1973).
45. Hartmann, H. T., Flocker, W. J., and Kofranek,
A. M., “Plant Science,” Growth, Development
and Utilization of Cultivated Plants (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1981).
46. Hawkes, J., Plant Genetic Resources: The Impact of the International Agricultural Research
Centers (Washington, DC: Consultative Group
on International Agricultural Research, World
Bank, 1985).
47. Hawkes, J. G., Crop Genetic Resources Field
Collection Manual (Rome: International Board
for Plant Genetic Resources and European
Association for Research on Plant Breeding,
1980).
48. Helentjaris, T., King, G., Slocum, M., Siedenstrang, C., and Wegman, S., “Restriction Fragment Polymorphisms as Probes for Plant Diversity and Their Development as Tools for Applied
Plant Breeding,” Plant Molecular Biology 5:109118, 1985,
49. Henshaw, G. G., Keefe, P. D., and O’Hara, J. F.,
“Cryopreservation of Potato Meristems, ” In
Vitro Techniques: Propagation and Long Term
Storage, A. Schafer-Menuhr (cd.) (Boston: Martinus Nijoff/ Dr. W. Junk Publication, 1985).
50. Huaman, Z., “The Evaluation of Potato Germ-
Ch. 7—Maintaining Plant Diversity Of fsite 199
●
51.
52.
53,
54.
55,
56.
57.
58,
59.
60.
61
62,
63,
plasm at the International Potato Center,” Crop
Genetic Resources: Conservation and Evaluation, J.H.W. Holden and J.T. Williams (eds.)
(London: George Allen & Unwin, 1984).
International Board for Plant Genetic Resources,
Revised Priorities Among Crops and Regions,
AGP:IBPGR/81/34 (Rome: 1981].
International Board for Plant Genetic Resources,
Practical Constraints Affecting the Collection
and Exchange of Wild Species and Primitive
Cu]tivars, AGpG:1J3pGR/83/49 (Rome: 1983).
International Board for Plant Genetic Resources,
“IBPGR Advisory Committee on In Vitro Storage, ” First Meeting, Aug. 16-20, 1982 (Rome:
1983).
International Board for Plant Genetic Resources,
IBPGR Advisory Committee on Seed Storage,
Report of the Second Meeting, Sept. 19-20,
1983, AGPG:IBPGR/83/116 (Rome: 1984).
International Board for Plant Genetic Resources,
Cost-Effective Long-Term Seed Stores (Rome:
1985).
International Board for Plant Genetic Resources,
“IBPGR Advisory Committee on In-Vitro Storage, ” Report of the Second Meeting (Rome:
1985).
Janick, J., Schery, R. W., Woods, F. W., and Ruttan, V. W., Plant Science. An Introduction to
World Crops, 2d ed. (San Francisco: W .H. Freeman & Co., 1974).
Justice, O. L., and Bass, L., Principles and Practices of Seed Storage, Agriculture Handbook
No. 506 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, 1978).
Kahn, R. P., “Plant Quarantine: Principles,
Methodology, and Suggested Approaches, ”
Plant Health and Quarantine in International
Transfer of Plant Genetic Resources, W.B.
Hewitt and L. Chiarappa (eds.) (Cleveland, OH:
CRC Press, 1977). In: Kahn, 1985.
Kahn, R. P., “Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity: Assessment of Plant Quarantine Practices, ” OTA commissioned paper,
1985,
Kaiser, W, J., “Plant Introduction and Related
Seed Pathology Research in the United States,”
Seed Science and Technology 11:197-212,
1983.
Kartha, K. K., “Meristem Culture and Germplasm Preservation, ” Cryopreservation of Plant
Cells and Organs, K.K. Kartha (cd.) (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1985). In: Towill, et al,,
1985.
King, M. W., and Roberts, E. H., The Storage
of Recalcitrant Seeds—Achievements and Possible Approaches (Rome: International Board
for Plant Genetic Resources, 1979).
64. King, M. W., and Roberts, E. H., “The Desiccation Response of Seeds of Citrus limon L., ” Annals of Botany 45:489-492, 1980. In: Towill, et
al., 1985.
65. Konopka, J., and Hanson, J. (eds, ), Documentation of Genetic Resources: Information Handling Systems for Genebank Management (Rome:
International Board for Plant Genetic Resources,
1985),
66! Koopowitz, H., Developmental and Cell Biology, University of California, Irvine, personal
communication, August 1986.
67, Larkin, P. J., and Scowcroft, W. R., “Somaclonal
Variation: A Novel Source of Variability From
Cell Cultures for Plant Improvement,” Theroet.
Appl. Genet, 60:197-214, 1981,
68, Lucas, G., Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew, England, personal communication, May 1986,
69. Lucas, G., and Oldfield, S., “The Role of Zoos,
Botanical Gardens and Similar Institutions in
the Maintenance of Biological Diversity,” OTA
commissioned paper, 1985,
70, Lyman, J. M,, “Progress and Planning for Germplasm Conservation of Major Food Crops,”Plant
Genetic Resources Newsletter 60:3-21, 1984,
71. McMahan, L., Center for Plant Conservation,
Boston, personal communication, August 1986.
72, Melchers, G,, Saeristan, M,, and Holder, A, A.,
“Somatic Hybrid Plants of Potato and Tomato
Regenerated From Fused Protoplasts, ” Carlsberg Res. Comm. 43:203-218, 1978.
73, Oldfield, M. L., The Value of Conserving Genetic Resources (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1984).
74. Orton, T. J., “Somaclonal Variation: Theoretical and Practical Consideration, ” Gene Manipulation in Plant Improvement, J, P. Gustafson
(cd.) (New York: Plenum Press, 1984). In: Orton, 1985.
75. Orton, T. J., “New Technologies and the Enhancement of Plant Germplasm Diversity,”
OTA commissioned paper, 1985,
76. Peacock, W. J,, “The Impact of Molecular Biology on Genetic Resources, ” Crop Genetic Resources: Conservation and Evaluation, J.H. W,
Holden and J.T. Williams (eds.) (London: George
Allen & Unwin, 1984).
77. Plucknett, D. L., and Smith, N. H., “Sustaining
Agricultural Yields,” Bioscience 36:40-45,
1983.
78. Plucknett, D. L., Smith, N. J. H., Williams, J. T.,
200 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
79.
80.
81
82.
83.
84(
85
86.
87.
88.
89.
and Anishetty, N. M., “Crop Germplasm Conservation and Developing Countries, ” Science
220:163-169, 1986.
Plucknett, D., Smith, N., Williams J. T., and
Anishetty, N. M., Gene Banks and The World’s
Food (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, in press).
Richardson, S. D., “Gene Pools in Forestry, ”
Genetic Resources in Plants—Their Exploration and Conservation, O.H. Frankel and E.
Bennet (eds.) IBP Handbook No. 11:353-365
(Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications,
1970).
Rick, C. M., “Plant Germplasm Resources,”
Handbook of Plant Cell Culture, P.V, Ammirato, D.A. Evans, W.R. Sharp, and Y. Yamada
(eds.), vol. 3:9-36 (New York: Macmillan Press,
1984).
Roberts, E, H., “Loss of Seed Viability During
Storage,” Advances in Research and Technology of Seeds, Part 8, J.R. Thompson (cd.)
(Wageningen: Pudoc, 1983).
Roberts, E. H., “Monitoring Seed Viability in
Genebanks,” Seed Management Techniques
for Genebanks, J.B. Dickie, S. Linington, and
J.T. Williams (eds.) AGPG:IBPGR/84/68 (Rome:
International Board for Plant Genetic Resources,
1984).
Roberts, E. H., and Ellis, R. H., “The Implications of the Deterioration of Orthodox Seeds
During Storage for Genetic Resources Conservation, ” Crop Genetic Resources: Conservation and Evaluation, J.H.W. Holden and J.T.
Williams (eds.) (London: George Allen& Unwin,
1984).
Roberts, E. H., King, M. W., and Ellis, R. H.,
“Recalcitrant Seeds: Their Recognition and
Storage, ” Crop Genetic Resources: Conservation and Evaluation, J.H.W. Holden and J.T.
Williams (eds.) (London: George Allen& Unwin,
1984).
Roos, E. E., “Induced Genetic Changes in Seed
Germplasm During Storage, ” The Physiology
and Biochemistry of Seed Development, Dormancy and Germination, A.A. Kahn (cd.) (New
York: Elsevier Biomedical Press, 1982).
Roos, E. E., “Genetic Shifts in Mixed Bean Populations, Part I: Storage Effects,” Crop Science
24:240-244, 1984.
Roos, E. E., “Genetic Shifts in Mixed Bean Populations, Part II: Effects of Regeneration, ” Crop
Science 24:711-715, 1984.
Roos, E. E., “Precepts of Successful Seed Storage, ” Physiology of Seed Deterioration, Spec.
Pub. No. 11:1-25 (Madison, WI: Crop Science
SocietV of America, 1986).
90. Scowcroft, W. R.. Genetic Variabi]itv in Tissue
Culture: Impact ‘on Germplasm Conservation
and Utilization, AGpG:lBPGR/84/152 (Rome:
International Board for Plant Genetic Resources,
1984).
91 Scowcroft, W. R., and Larkin, P. J., “Somaclonal
Variation, Cell Selection and Genotype Culture,” Comprehensive Biotechnology, vol. 3,
C.W. Robinson and H.J. Howells (eds.) (Sydney: Academic Press, 1984). In: Scowcroft, et
al., 1984.
92. Scowcroft, W. R., Ryan, S. A., Brettel, R. I. S.,
and Larkin, P. J., “Somaclonal Variation: A
‘New’ Genetic Resource, ” Crop Genetic Resources: Conservation and Evaluation, J.H. W.
Holden and J,T, Williams (eds.) (London: George
Allen & Unwin, 1984).
93! Sharp, W. R., Evans, D. A., Ammirato, P. V., and
Yamada, Y, (eds.), Handbook of Plant Cell Culture, vol. 2 (New York: Macmillan Press, 1984).
94, Simpson, M. J. A., and Withers, L. A., Characterization of Plant Genetic Resources Using
Isozyme Electrophoresis: A Guide to the Literature (Rome: International Board for Plant
Genetic Resources, 1986).
95 Singh, R. B., and Williams, J. T., “Maintenance
and Multiplication of Plant Genetic Resources, ”
Crop Genetic Resources: Conservation and
Evaluation, J,H.W. Holden and J.T. Williams
(eds.) (London: George Allen& Unwin, 1984].
96. Smith, D. H., curator, U.S. National Small
Grains Collection, personal communications,
Jan. 19, 1986.
97. Smith, R. D., Linin~ton, S. H., and Fox, D. T.,
“The Role of the C;mputer in the Day to Day
Running of the Kew Seed Bank,” Documentation of Genetic Resources: Information Handling Systems for Genebank Management, J.
Konopka and J. Hanson (eds.), AGPG:IBPGR/
85/76 (Rome: International Board for Plant
Genetic Resources, 1985).
98 Sprague, G. F., “Germplasm Resources of Plants:
Their Preservation a“nd Use,” Annual Review
of Phytopathology 18:147-165, 1980.
99. Stanwood, P. C., “Cryopreservation of Seeds,”
Report Second Meeting, IBPGR Advisory Committee on Seed Storage, App. III (Rome: International Board for Plant Genetic Resources,
1984).
100. Stanwood, P. C., “Cryopreservation of Seed
Germplasm for Genetic Conservation,” Cryopreservation of Plant Cells and Organs, K.K.
Kartha (cd.) (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1985).
101. Stanwood, P. C., USDA-ARS National Seed
Storage Laboratory, Fort Collins, CO, personal
communication, May 1986.
Ch. 7—Maintaining Plant Diversity Offsite “ 201
102. Stanwood, P. C., and Bass, L, N,, “Seed Germplasm Preservation Using Liquid Nitrogen, ”
Seed Science and Technology 9:423-437, 1981.
103. Strauss, M. S., “Technology and Plant Gene
Banking in Developing Countries, ” OTA staff
paper, 1986.
104. Tanksley, S. D., and Orton, T. J., lsozymes in
Plant Genetics and Breeding, Part A (New
York: Elsevier Biomedical Press, 1983),
105. Tanksley, S. D., and Orton, T. J,, Isozymes in
Plant Genetics and Breeding, Part B (New
York: Elsevier Biomedical Press, 1983).
106, Thibodeau, F., and Falk, D,, “The Center for
Plant Conservation: A New Response to Endangerment, ” The Public Garden, January
1986.
107, Towill, L. E,, “Low Temperature and FreezeVacuum-Drying Preservation of Pollen,” Cryopreservation of Plant Cells and Organs, K,K.
Kartha (cd.) (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1985).
108, Towill, L., Roos, E., and Stanwood, P. C., “Plant
Germplasm Storage Technologies, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.
109. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Impacts of Applied Genetics: MicroOrganisms, Plants, and Animals, OTA-HR-132
(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office, April 1981),
110, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Plants: The Potentials for Extracting Protein, Medicines, and Other Useful Chemicals—
Workshop Proceedings, OTA-BP-F-23 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,
September 1983).
111 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Commercial Biotechnology: An International Analysis, OTA-BA-218 (Springfield, VA:
National Technical Information Service, January 1984).
112. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Grassroots Conservation of Biological
Diversity in the United States—Background
Paper#l, OTA-BP-F-38 (Washington, DC: U.S
Government Printing Office, February 1986).
113. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural
Research Service, Research Progress in 1985,
A Report of the Agricultural Research Service
(Washington, DC: 1986).
114. Weeden, N., and Young, D. A., “Technologies
To Evaluate and Characterize Plant GermD]asm.”
OTA commissioned DaDer.
‘
11, 1985.
115. Wilkes, G,, “Current Status of Crop Plant
Germplasm, ” CRC Critical Reviews in Plant
Science 1:133-181, 1983.
116, Wilkes, G., “Germplasm Conservation Toward
the Year 2000: Potential for New Crops and
Enhancement of Present Crops,” Plant Genetic
Resources, A Conservation Imperative, AAAS
Selected Symposium 87:131-164, 1984.
117. Williams, J. T,, “A Decade of Crop Genetic Resources Research, ” Crop Genetic Resources:
Conservation and Evaluation, J,H.W. Holden
and J.T. Williams (eds.) (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1984).
118. Williams, J. T., and Damania, A. B., Directory
of Germplasm Collections, 5: Industrial Crops,
I: Cacao, Coconut, Pepper, Sugarcane, and Tea
(Rome: International Board for Plant Genetic
Resources, 1981).
119, Withers, L. A., “Germplasm Storage in Plant
Biotechnology, ” Plant Biotechnology, S.H,
Mantell and H. Smith (eds.] (Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press, 1983),
120. Withers, L, A,, “Germplasm Conservation In
Vitro: Present State of Research and Its Application, ” Crop Genetic Resources: Conservation
and Evaluation, J,H,W, Holden and J.T. Williams (eds.) (London: George Allen & Unwin,
1984).
121 Withers, L, A,, “Cryopreservation of Cultured
Cells and Meristems, ” Cell Culture and Somatic Cell Genetics of P]ants, 2:253-3 16 (New
York: Academic Press, 1985].
122, Withers, L. A., “Cryopreservation and Genebanks, ” Plant Cell Culture Technology, ” M.M,
Yeoman (cd.), Botanical Monographs, 23:96140 (Oxford, U. K.: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1986).
123. Withers, L. A., and Williams, J. T,, “Research
on Long-Term Storage and Exchange of In
Vitro Plant Germplasm, ” Biotechnology in international Agricultural Research (Manila,
Philippines: International Rice Research Institute, 1985).
124. Witt, S., Briefbook: Biotechnology and Genetic
Diversity, California Agricultural Lands Project, 1985.
125, Yndgaard, F,, “Genebank Security Storage in
Permafrost, ” Plant Genetic Resources Newsletter 62:2-7, 1985.
Chapter 8
Maintaining Microbial Diversity
P8ge
Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........? .. ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..C205
O v e r v i e w . . . . .D .@. ... .. a....... .. ... ... ... . O O O. .. e g t. ... .... o .. . . . . 2 0 5
What Is Microbial Diversity? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........205
Status of Microbial Diversity Onsite. . . . . . . . . ..*.+*.,. ........~..~,..zoy
Microbial Diversity Offsite. ... ....o. . . . . . . . .!....... . .....,........208
Maintenance Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. S .......208
Isolation and Sampling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........208
Microbial Identification ..***,* **9*.** ****..* ******* 9*.9.*** *** 209
Storage of Micro-Organisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~...,......... ... .+..209
Needs and Opportunities . .****..******* . . . . . . .+....... .. .. ... ... ...+212
Catalog Collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... 0 0 . 0 0. 9 . . s .
Develop Methods for Isolation and Culture ..***.* ..***..* ******* .** 213
Study of Microbial Ecology , , , . . . . .*.*** ****99* ******, 9******* 9 213
Chapter preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● *214
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Table.
Page
Table No.
8-1. Summary of the Characteristics, problems, and Uses of
Micro-Organisms .. ... ... s...... . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . .. a t . . . . . . . . . . . ..207
Box
BoXN O.
Page
8-A,The Importance of Microbial Diversity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....206
Chapter 8
Maintaining Microbial Diversity
Micro-organisms provide benefits and harbor danger. But safeguarding a diversity of these organisms remains important, for few have been cataloged and
the potential contribution to agriculture, industry, and medicine is therefore
unknown.
The most cost-effective way to preserve economically important micro-organisms today is through offsite collections. Micro-organisms that are isolated
and identified can be stored from a few days to as long as 30 years.
Technologies used are freeze-drying (the most common method), ultra-freezing
(which costs more in labor and materials), immersion in mineral oil, lowtemperature freezing, and desiccation. The last three methods are suitable for
short-term storage only.
A high priority in efforts to maintain a diversity of micro-organisms is the need
for an integrated database of current collections. Also needed is research on
microbial ecology, to better understand the extent to which plants and animals
depend. on bacteria and fungi to survive.
OVERVIEW
What Is Microbial Diversity?
cludes such different things as the large marine algae of ocean kelp beds and the submicroscopic viruses that infect humans,
animals, plants, and other micro-organisms,
Even smaller than viruses are those infective
agents, such as viroids, that have been found
to be nothing more than pieces of genetic material, lacking even the typical protein coats of
a virus. Thus, the diversity of micro-organisms
is immense, with only a relatively small fraction of micro-organisms having been identified
(19,25),
The wide range of micro-organisms not typically classed as plants or animals includes bacteria, cyanobacteria (blue-green algae), fungi (including yeasts), protozoa, and viruses (see table
8-l). Although the microscopic, single-celled
bacteria are generally considered synonymous
with the term micro-organism, the field in-
The concept of a species, borrowed from animal and plant biology, cannot be easily applied
to all micro-organisms (5,19,25,29). Research
frequently focuses on populations of microbial
cells that share common nutritional, chemical,
or biochemical characteristics. Such populations, each typically descended from a single
Micro-organisms constitute a vast, though
largely unseen, part of the biotic world. Although most frequently discussed in terms of
their harmful effects on humans, they are essential to the proper functioning of ecosystems
as well as to the survival of many species of
plants and animals (19,25) (see box 8-A). The
public is less concerned, however, about potential losses of microbial diversity than about
plant, animal, or ecosystem diversity (19).
205
[page omitted]
This page was originally printed on a dark gray background.
The scanned version of the page was almost entirely black and not usable.
Ch. 8—Maintaining Microbial Diversity
——
Organisms
●
207
Table 8“1 .—Summary of the Characteristics, Problems, and Uses of Micro-Organisms
— —
.—
Characteristics
Problems
.——. —
Some cause disease in humans,
animals, and plants,
Bacteria
Single-cells; spherical rod and
spiral forms. Most are saprophytes (use dead matter for
food), although some bacteria
are photosynthetic.
Fungi
Variety of forms; microscopic
molds, mildews, rusts, and
smuts; larger mushrooms and
puffballs,
Rot textiles, leather, harvested
foods, and other products;
cause important plant and
animal diseases.
Algae
Single cells, colonies, or filaments containing chlorophyll
and other characteristic pigments; no true roots, stems, or
leaves; aquatic.
Cover pond surfaces, producing
scum and unpleasant odor and
taste (in drinking water); absorb 0, from ponds and some
produce toxins.
Protozoa
Single cells, or groups of similar
cells, found in fresh and sea
water, in soil, and as symbi onts or parasites in man,
animals, and some plants.
Responsible for serious human
and animal disease (e. g.,
malaria, sleeping sickness,
dysentery).
Viruses
Infective agents; capable of multiplying only in living cells;
composed of proteins and
nucleic acids.
Cause variety of human, animal,
and plant diseases (e. g., influenza, AIDS, rabies,
mosaics).
;OURCE National Academy of Sciences, M/crob/a/ Processes Promls)ng Techfrolog(es for Developing Countr(es
Uses
Break down organic matter
and assist soil fertility,
waste disposal, and biogas
production; source of antibiotics and other
chemicals,
Assist in recycling complex
plant constituents such as
cel Iulose; mushrooms and
yeasts important as foods;
many used in chemical and
pharmaceutical industries.
Red and brown seaweeds are
important foods in Asia and
Polynesia; red algae
produce agar; important
food source for many ocean
fish.
Assist in breakdown of organic matter such as cellulose
in ruminant nutrition,
Important as carriers of genetic information; some infecting pests can be used as
biological control aaents.
(Washington DC National
Academy Press, 1979)
cell, are termed strains (7). Individually identifiable strains of micro-organisms are thus
often regarded as the basic units of microbial
diversity.
Micro-organisms are found in nearly all environments (8). Bacteria, for example, have been
found living in deep-sea steam vents at temperatures of 3500 C (22). Although some micro-organisms are widely distributed, others may be
restricted to a narrow ecological range, Most
micro-organisms are found as parts of complex
microbial communities or as integral parts of
larger ecosystems. Many of these micro-organisms cannot be isolated and grown under controlled laboratory conditions (25).
Status of Microbial Diversity Onsite
Photo credtt” G.E Pierce and M K Mulks
Pseudomonas putida, a bacterium capable of degrading
hydrocarbons, is one type of micro-organism.
Assessing the status and changes in microbial
diversity onsite can be difficult. As noted
earlier, few micro-organisms have been isolated
208 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
and described or identified (25). Therefore, any
changes that occur cannot be determined as
temporary or permanent.
For example, the composition of microbial
populations within environments can be dramatically altered by pollutants (18,19,32).
Studies of microbial populations at a pharmaceutical dump site in the Atlantic Ocean indicate that the survival and growth of certain
marine micro-organisms over others in the population occur as a result of pollution (27), Although it is clear that pollution or environmental disturbance can produce quantitative
changes, definitive evidence of extinction of
micro-organisms, as is seen in plants and animals, is rare. But it would seem likely that where
micro-organisms are highly adapted to a specific environment, loss of that environment
could result in extinction of the micro-organisms (10).
one group of micro-organisms for which the
potential for loss has been a particular concern
is the macrofungi—more specifically, the edible wild mushrooms. Morels, chanterelles, and
other mushrooms have long been collected by
fanciers, particularly in the Northwest United
States (33). However, increased collection to
serve a growing commercial demand for wild
mushrooms has raised fears that the most
sought-after species could become rare or extinct (1,33). Scientists currently disagree about
whether this is possible, for it is not even known
MAINTENANCE
Onsite maintenance is the only feasible longterm method for maintaining the major portion
of microbial diversity, because most of the
micro-organisms in any single environment
have yet to be identified (19). But existing programs to maintain animal and plant diversity
will likely cover all but a few specialized environments (e. g., deep-sea steam vents), so establishing reserves specifically for maintaining
micro-organisms should not be necessary,
The most cost-effective approach to providing ready access to the many economically,
if wild mushrooms can be overharvested (33).
In the absence of information, some efforts have
been made to limit collection (33). Research on
the biology and ecology of these mushrooms
and their distribution is needed.
Microbial Diversity Offsite
The principal repositories for those few
micro-organisms that have been isolated are offsite collections. Offsite collections of microorganisms provide easier and quicker access
to specific strains than repeatedly returning to
onsite sources to obtain them. In addition, it
may not always be possible to obtain the same
micro-organism from the same place. The
fungus from which penicillin was derived, for
example, could not again be isolated from air
or dust samples in the laboratory where it was
first found as a culture contaminant. Offsite collections also are used as reference standards for
taxonomic and comparative studies. In microbiology, a “type” strain of a micro-organism
is maintained for use as a reference and as a
source for subsequent studies (17). It would be
impossible to isolate type-strains from natural
environments each time comparative studies
were initiated (19,21).
Current offsite collections of micro-organisms are actively used as resources by industry and by the scientific community. Yet such
collections are rarely established or maintained
for preserving microbial diversity (26).
TECHNOLOGIES
medically, agriculturally, or scientifically important micro-organisms today is to preserve
them in offsite collections (19). The following
sections assess the techniques required to maintain micro-organisms offsite.
lsolation and Sampling
Isolation of micro-organisms and their incorporation into a collection generally reflects a
particular set of goals. Laboratory applications,
such as those involved in genetic engineering,
require specific strains of micro-organisms that,
Ch. 8—Maintaining Microbial Diversity
once obtained, are kept as pure cultures. Microorganisms have been isolated to study their interrelationships and the way the dynamics between populations influence the entire biological food chain. Some collections represent
sampling of specific taxonomic classes of
micro-organisms of economic or agricultural
importance. The actinomycete collection of the
Battelle-Kettering Laboratory (Yellow Springs,
OH) and the many collections of varying sizes
of Rhizobiurn, the nitrogen-fixing bacteria of
legumes, are examples of goal-directed collections. The pathogenic characteristics of a
micro-organism, as in the case of a diseaseproducing virus, can also merit spending funds,
time, and expertise to isolate it.
Isolated pure cultures of micro-organisms are
necessary for detailed study (7). For some, such
as the fungi, a sterile culture of spores on a specially prepared medium may be all that is necessary to obtain a pure culture. Nutritional requirements for various fungi can, however, be
specific and difficult to determine. Most bacteria must be cultured on a variety of media
that will stimulate growth of possible contaminants, from which pure culture can then be obtained. Viruses are frequently isolated from infected cells or tissues by centrifugation or
filtration techniques that separate them from
other cellular components. For micro-organisms
that consist only of a small piece of genetic material, such as viroids, the newly developed
technologies for isolating, multiplying, and
characterizing DNA and RNA have been important. The critical determination that an isolated
micro-organism is pure can be a lengthy process of repeated culture or separation under
varying conditions and can be a research problem in itself (7).
Studies of microbial ecology and microbial
diversity are limited by the inability of scientists at the present time to isolate many microorganisms (19). Identification, for example, generally requires growth in pure culture to allow
for nutritional and physiological testing, It is
not currently possible to acquire a knowledge
of the total microbial diversity in any one environment in a readily definable time period because of this inability to isolate, culture, and
●
209
characterize every (or even most) micro-organism present. Thus, sampling of diversity is
limited to those micro-organisms for which isolation and culture technologies are available.
Identification of isolated micro-organisms
can be a lengthy and complex task (for details
of the principles and procedures, see ref. 15),
Preliminary identification involves standard
staining procedures and microscopic examination. Analysis of the results of these initial examinations requires extensive knowledge of
micro-organisms and the general characteristics of various taxonomic groups, Information
regarding the source of the isolate can also play
an important role at this stage,
Following preliminary identification, the
micro-organism is subjected to more detailed
analysis, frequently consisting of examination
of growth characteristics on varying substrates
and under varying environmental conditions,
These tests establish specific physiological
characteristics that aid identification. The general protocol is to work with a pure culture and,
using selected tests, narrow the range of possibilities. Once identified, the isolate is then compared to a reference sample using selected diagnostic tests (24),
Biochemical analysis of proteins and DNA,
as described for plants (see ch. 7), has been used
for identification of many strains of microorganisms (7’), Although these technologies routinely identify the micro-organisms used in research laboratories, they are not generally applied in offsite collections. As the field of
genetic engineering has developed, however,
the capacity to study, compare, and identify the
genomes of micro-organisms has improved
(10,31). Such techniques could greatly enhance
assessment of diversity and facilitate identification of micro-organisms in offsite collections.
Storage of Micro-Orgonisms
The purpose of preserving micro-organisms
is to maintain a strain for an indefinite period
in a viable state. The continuous culture of a
210 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
micro-organism is one way to present it, but
it is expensive both in materials and in labor
and does not ensure that the genetic stability
of the micro-organism will be maintained. Continuously subculture organisms can adapt to
the specialized conditions of the laboratory and
take on characteristics different from those for
which they were originally isolated. Long-term
storage techniques that minimize such effects
have been developed,
Storage of micro-organisms involves reducing metabolic rates and, thus, the rate at which
micro-organisms multiply and use nutrients
(19). All methods that reduce metabolic rates
cause loss of a certain percentage of the sample. Methods need to be developed, therefore,
that not only reduce metabolic rates but also
prevent decline in viability in order to prevent
loss of the strain.
An additional time-consuming but crucial
task associated with storage technologies is
authentication (19). This task involves the maintenance of accurate records about the culture
history and diagnostic characteristics of the
strains in a collection. It also involves periodically recovering and culturing stored organisms
to determine their viability and to confirm purity and genetic stability.
The majority of micro-organisms currently
preserved in culture collections are held by
freeze-drying or by ultra-freezing (cryogenic
storage) (16,19). These two methods permit storage for extremely long periods of time (currently
as long as 30 years) (16). Other special methods for storage of micro-organisms are immersion in mineral oil, low-temperature freezing,
and desiccation (16),
these frozen suspensions are placed under
vacuum to remove the water in them. The vials
are then heat-sealed under vacuum by melting
the glass tops with an air-gas torch and stored
at temperatures lower than 50 C. Lower storage temperatures (– 30° to – 70° C) may result
in lengthened viability.
Chemical agents (cryoprotectants) that protect cells from damage caused by ice-crystal formation during the initial freezing are commonly
added to cells before freeze-drying. The American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) routinely
uses 10 percent skim milk or 12 percent sucrose
for such purposes. Curators at the Northern Regional Research Laboratory of the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service, in contrast, prefer
bovine or equine serum as a cryoprotectant for
all microbial species (19).
Recovery of the lyophilized cells is simple and
straightforward. The sealed vial is opened by
scoring, and a small amount of liquid-nutrient
medium is added to rehydrate the cells. The
contents, once rehydrated, are transferred to
a culture vessel containing a medium appropriate for growth.
The initial cost of equipping a laboratory to
undertake lyophilization is as much as $25,000
(11). The expense of actually preparing lyophilized cultures, however, is low, The long-term
viability of such materials is excellent, and this
procedure is thus probably the most cost-effective means of microbial preservation in use
today (19). Unfortunately, some microbial species do not fare well under these techniques,
and other storage methods must be used,
Ulfra-Freezing
Freeze-Drying
Freeze-drying, or lyophilization, is now the
most commonly used storage technique for culture collections. Healthy microbial cells, grown
under optimal conditions, are dispensed in
small, sterile vials or ampules at a relatively high
concentration (e. g., 1 06 to 10 7 cells per milliliter of solution). The vials are then quickly
frozen in a super-cooled liquid solvent bath or
in a mechanical ultra-freezer (at – 60° C), and
Fastidious microbial species (i.e., those with
complex nutritional requirements) that do not
retain viability under other preservation methods (e.g., plant pathogenic fungi) frequently can
be preserved by ultra-freezing (2,19). In this procedure, cells sealed in vials or ampules are frozen at a slow cooling rate (1° C per minute) until they reach – 1500 C, The vials are then stored
at — 1500 to — 196° C using liquid nitrogen
freezers.
Ch. 8—Maintaining Microbial Diversity . 211
Cells stored at cryogenic temperatures must
be handled carefully when being recovered, Ice
crystals can form as vials are warmed and can
kill cells that would otherwise survive the technique. Loss of viability is minimal when the
sample is thawed rapidly, Sealed vials are thus
put in water at 37’o C until all ice melts. Then
they are opened and the contents transferred
to nutrient medium.
W
Cells being dispensed into ampules to be frozen and
stored in liquid nitrogen ( – 196 C). The cabinet contains
air to lessen the chances of
only sterile,
contamination of the freeze preparation.
Ultra-frozen cultures must be maintained at
very low temperatures at all times during storage. Liquid nitrogen freezers are therefore
needed, Proper precautions are important to
ensure that such freezers operate properly and
have sufficient supplies of liquid nitrogen coolant over long periods of time. Thus, the technique can cost more than freeze-drying, both
in labor and in materials necessary to maintain storage temperatures, Ultra-freezing is reserved for microbial species that are not amenable to other, less costly procedures.
Other Methods
credit
Ampules of freeze-dried or frozen living strains can be
stored in mechanical refrigerators at –60” C (–76 - F),
in walk-in cold rooms at 5 C (40 F), or in vacuum-insulated
refrigerators (above) automatically supplied
with liquid nitrogen at – 196 C ( – 320 F).
The cryoprotective agents necessary for this
procedure differ from the ones used in lyophilization. ATCC routinely uses a mixture of
glycerol (10 percent), dimethylsulfoxide (5 percent), and nutrient medium for most bacterial
strains. These chemicals are taken into the cells
and protect the internal membranes from injury caused by freezing.
Microbial cell cultures can be stored for short
periods of time if the culture is overlaid with
sterile mineral oil. The oil prevents dehydration and reduces the metabolic rate of the organisms (16). Cells are grown on either nutrient
gels or in broth cultures, After incubation and
growth, mineral oil is added to the culture to
a depth of about 2 centimeters. The cultures
are then stored at approximately 40 C. Recovery
is by procedures similar to those used for routine subculture. Although cultures preserved
in this way have remained viable for as long
as 3 years, the method is not considered appropriate for long-term storage of micro-organisms,
because cultures have to be recovered, authenticated, and restored every few years (19),
A few micro-organisms, like some of the actinomycetes and some soil-borne spore-forming
bacteria, can withstand normal freezing processes and retain both viability and genetic stability. Cultures are stored on a nutrient medium
at 0° to — 20° C, Cells may remain viable for
as long as 2 years, but damage by ice crystal
formation is thought to be extensive (19). For
212 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
certain microbial cells, low-temperature freezing is inexpensive and useful for a short period.
Like immersion in mineral oil, however, repetitive recovery, authentication, and restorage
make this technique too labor-intensive for longterm maintenance of micro-organisms.
The majority of microbial cells die if they are
dried at ambient temperatures (16). But a few
can withstand dehydration and remain viable
for moderate periods of time. Spore-forming
bacteria are particularly suited to this method
of storage. Microbial cells are usually transferred to a sterile, solid material, and then de-
hydrated under vacuum. A soil, paper, or ceramic bead medium is frequently used. Cells
also may be suspended in gelatin solution and
then drops of the gelatin dried under vacuum.
Once dehydrated, the cells must be stored in
desiccators but will remain viable longer if
refrigerated. Recovery of the cells is by dehydration with nutrient medium and subculture. This
method is relatively inexpensive and routinely
used for some important bacterial genera (e. g.,
Rhizobiurn). However, other techniques, if
available, are preferred for long-term storage
(19).
NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES
No major technical constraints limit the storage and use of micro-organisms in the United
States and most other industrial nations, although developing countries lag behind in the
application, use, and technological knowledge
of micro-organisms (28). The most satisfactory
long-term storage techniques for micro-organisms are also those that are technologically
the most sophisticated. In the case of cryogenic
storage, the technique requires a dependable
source of liquid nitrogen. Lyophilization of cultures in sealed, evacuated glass-ampules creates culture units with excellent longevity, even
when stored at room temperature. The attraction of this method for developing countries
is diminished slightly by the relatively high initial cost of equipment and problems keeping
such equipment operational (19).
Improvisation in the laboratories of developing-country scientists has resulted in a wide array of variations of standard preservation methods (19). These modified methods are, in many
cases, satisfactory to the individual collection
curators, though most require micro-organisms
to be regularly subculture. This requirement
makes these methods suitable only for relatively
small collections, and it increases the likelihood
of strains becoming genetically adapted to culture and losing their original characteristics.
Maintaining and distributing a current catalog is the goal of virtually every collection curator, Without such a compilation to provide
potential users with ready access to its contents,
the value of a collection is greatly diminished.
That very few collections are adequately cataloged is a reflection of just how onerous this
task can be. In a sense, this aspect of collection management has been constrained by lack
of an appropriate technology (19). The advent
of microcomputers and highly adaptable, user-friendly database management systems software heralds a new era enabling a curator to
compile, print, and update a catalog inexpensively and with relative ease [9). Such electronic
catalogs would make current collections more
accessible and improve their management (4).
One way to catalog the contents of various
collections is through creation of a National
Microbial Resource Network. Two main obstacles can be anticipated to such a network:
1. the differences in history, traditions, and
2.
independence of existing collections; and
the difficulty of standardizing technical
and informational protocols to assure meaningful interchange of germplasm and data
among participating network institutions.
Ch. 8—Maintaining Microbial Diversity . 213
One network of microbiological resource
centers (MIRCENs) has been addressing these
obstacles for almost a decade (12) (see ch. 10).
In practice, however, this endeavor has been
frustrated by an inability to come up with standardized data sets that reconcile the different
orientations of individual collections worldwide and by financial resources that fall far
short of the level required (12).
A more focused attempt to achieve an integrated microbial resource database was initiated in 1984 by UNESCO, This MIRCEN project is still being developed and provides for
standardization of a minimum data set for characterized strains of Rhizobium (the bacteria involved in nitrogen fixation in soybeans, alfalfa,
beans, and other legumes); adoption of compatible database management systems; and
periodic publication of an integrated catalog
of the collections held at Beltsville, Maryland
(USA), Porto Alegre (Brazil), Nairobi (Kenya),
and Maui, Hawaii (USA).
An appraisal of the lessons learned in the international MIRCEN effort could greatly benefit
establishment of a National Microbial Research
Network. Reservations may be expressed about
whether the institution-building rationale for
the MIRCEN program will mean the collections
are of less-than-optimal quality; nevertheless,
with limited financial resources, the MIRCEN
program has achieved a high degree of network
effectiveness, including regular global and regional newsletters, electronic data exchange,
and computer conferences,
Develop Methods for Isolation
and Culture
An important challenge to maintaining
micro-organisms offsite is the development of
methods for culture of those organisms that
have not yet been isolated in the laboratory (19).
Basic research into the isolation and cultivation of these fastidious micro-organisms is essential to further applications of the world’s
microbial diversity. Research on microbial culture would allow better characterization of
diversity in natural environments as well as enable more efficient handling of difficult micro-
organisms in existing collections. Efforts to isolate the Legionella micro-organism or the
retrovirus (human T-cell leukemia-lymphoma
virus) associated with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) illustrate both the difficulty and importance of such research.
An appreciation of the complexity of the technical barriers faced by microbiologists trying
to isolate and culture many micro-organisms
is necessary to support research. Basic studies
of microbial physiology, through grant programs and in-house research by such agencies
as the National Science Foundation, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), can improve present
abilities to isolate and culture micro-organisms.
Study of Microbial Ecology
Another research priority is that of microbial
interactions that permit efficient functioning
of the microbial flora of an environment and,
ultimately, support higher organisms in that
environment, Research into microbial ecology
is an integral part of any strategy to preserve
micro-organisms. Present understanding of
microbial ecology and the extent of microbial
diversity in ecosystems is, however, inadequate
(19,25). Many plants and animals depend on
bacteria and fungi in the environment to survive (25), In some cases, such as digestion in
the termite or dairy cattle, microbes are important parts of the organism’s basic physiology.
Study of the soil micro-organisms that are active in nutrient recycling, such as those associated with nitrogen fixation, are of great potential importance to agriculture.
Grant programs and in-house research at
agencies such as NIH, USDA, the Department
of Energy, and the Environmental Protection
Agency could focus on improved understanding of microbial ecology, Present efforts are
spread over several agencies with little coordination. Examination of the overall efforts relating to microbial ecology and diversity could
lead to better coordination of research and development of a specific funding program within
one agency that would address microbial ecology research.
214 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
1. Allen, E. B,, research assistant professor, Utah
State University, Logan, UT, personal communication, May 14, 1986.
2. “ATCC Collection Emphasizes Living Plant
Pathogenic Fungi,” ATCC Quarterly Newsletter
3(1):5, 1983.
3.
Baird, J. K., Sandford, P. A., and Cottrell, I. W.,
“Industrial Applications of Some New Microbial Polysaccharides,” Biotechnology, November 1983, pp. 778-783.
4. Baker, D., research scientist, Battelle Kettering
Laboratory, Yellow Springs, OH, personal communication, Feb. 10, 1986.
5, Brenner, D,]., “Impact of Modern Taxonomy on
Clinical Microbiology, ” ASM News 49:58-63,
1983.
6. Brill, W. J., “Agricultural Microbiology, ” Scientific American 245:198-215, 1981.
7. Brock, T. D., Biology of Micro-Organisms (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1979).
8, Clarke, P. H., “Microbial Physiology and Biotechnology,” Endeavour, New Series 9:144-148,
1985.
9, Colwell, R. R., “Computer Science and Technology in a Modern Culture Collection, ” The Role
of Culture Collections in the Era of Molecular
Biology, R.R. Colwell, (cd.) (Washington, DC:
American Society for Microbiology, 1976).
10, Colwell, R. R., vice president for academic af-
fairs and professor of microbiology, University
of Maryland, Adelphi, personal communication,
July
174
18,
19
20
21
22
23,
7, 1986.
11. Colwell, R. R., vice president for academic affairs and professor of microbiology, University
of Maryland, Adelphi, personal communication,
Aug. 26, 1986.
12 Colwell, R, R., “Microbiological Resource Centers,” Science 233:4762, 1986.
13 Demain, A. L., “Industrial Aspects of Maintaining Germplasm and Genetic Diversity, ” The
Role of Culture Collections in the Era of Molecular Biology, R.R, Colwell (cd.) (Washington, DC:
American Society for Microbiology, 1976).
14. Dixon, B., Invisible Allies: Microbes and Man
Future (London: Temple Smith, 1976).
15, Gerhardt, P., Murray, R. G. E., Costilow, R. N.,
Nester, E. N., Wood, W. A., Krieg, N. R., and Phillips, G.B. (eds.), Manual of Methods for General
Bacteriology (Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology, 1981).
16( Gherna, R. L., “Preservation,” Manual of Methods for Genera] Bacteriology, P. Gerhardt, et al.
24.
(eds.) (Washington, DC: American Society for
Microbiology, 1981).
Gibbons, N. E., “Reference Collections of Bacteria—The Need and Requirements for Type
Strains, ” Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, N.R. Krieg and J,G. Holt (eds.) (Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins, 1984).
Grimes, D. J., Singleton, F. L., and Colwell, R. R,,
“Allogenic Succession of Marine Bacterial Communities in Response to Pharmaceutical
Waste,” Journal of Applied Bacteriology 57:247261, 1984.
Halliday, J., and Baker, D., “Technologies To
Maintain Microbial Diversity,” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.
Henahan, J., “Feisty Gram-Negative Aerobes
Succumb to New Antibiotic Group, ” Journal of
the American Medical Association 248:20852086, 1982.
Holmes, B., and Owen, R. J., “Proposal That
Flavobacterium breve Be Substituted as the
Type Species of the Genus in Place of Flavobacterium aqua tile and Amended Description of the
Genus Flavobacterium: Status of the Named
Species of Flavobacterium, ” International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology 29:416-426, 1979.
In: Halliday and Baker, 1985.
Klausner, A., “Bacteria Living at 350° May Have
Industrial Uses,” Biotechnology, 1983, pp.
640-641.
Klausner, A., “Microbial Insect Control, ”
Biotechnology, May 1984, pp. 408-419.
Krieg, N. R., “Enrichment and Isolation,” Manual of Methods for General Bacteriology, P.
Gerhardt, et al. (eds.) (Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology, 1981).
25 Margulis, L., Chase, D., and Guerrero, R., “Mi-
crobial Communities, ” Bioscience 36:160-170,
1986.
26 National Academy of Sciences, Microbial Processes: Promising Technologies for Developing
Countries (Washington, DC: National Academy
Press, 1979).
27 Peele, E. R., Singleton, F, L., Deming, J. W.,
Cavari, B., and C~lwell, R. R., “Effects ~f Pharmaceutical Wastes on Microbial Populations in
Surface Waters at the Puerto Rico Dump Site
in the Atlantic Ocean, ” Applied and Environmental Microbiology 41:873-879, 1981.
28. Pramer, D,, “Microbiology Needs of Developing
Countries: Environmental and Applied Problems,” ASM News 50(5):207-209, 1984,
Ch. 8—Maintaining Microbial Diversity
29. Sonea, S., and Panisset, M., A New Bacteriology (Boston, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers,
1983).
30. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Impacts of Applied Genetics. MicroOrganisms, Plants, and Animals, OTA-HR-132
(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1981).
31. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-
●
215
ment, Commercial Biotechnology: An International Analysis, PB #84-173 608 (Springfield, VA:
National Technical Information Service, 1984),
32. Walker, J. D., and Colwell, R, R., “Some Effects
of Petroleum on Estuarine and Marine MicroOrganisms, ” Canadian Journal of Botany
21:305-313, 1975.
33. White, P., “No Fungus Among Us?” Sierra, January/February 1986.
Part III
Institutions
Chapter 9
Maintaining Biological Diversity
in the United States
Page?
Highlights .*** *. **98*******..************* . ***..**,********.**.**. 221
Overview *.** . ******0**..******.********.* . * . . * * * * . * . * . * . . . * . * . * * * 221
Federal Mandates Affecting Biological Diversity Conservation. . ..........222
Onsite Biological Diversity-Maintenance Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .224
224
Ecosystem Diversity Maintenance. . . .
Species Habitat Protection . . . . . . . . . . *.*****.****.,**.***********. 228
Onsite Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .b, ..v. .e. ... ... ... b e . . . . . . . . . 231
Offsite Diversity Maintenance Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......232
PIant Programs .*** **** *.** **** . **0**************..*************** 232
Animal Programs . . . . . . . . . . . *,**,,**.****...****,*************,*, 238
Microbial Resource Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c . . t . ............242
Quarantine *0** *.** **** .*** **** **** **0* **0* *0** **** **** *o ***+0*** 244
Needs and Opportunities . . . *********O**.******.*..*************.**** 245
Chapter 9 References . . . . *.*********.********.****.*.**.*********** 246
●
●
●
0
*
*
.
*
*
0
*
*
.
*
*
*
*
.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0
*
.
*
,
.
●
●
●
Tables
Page
Tabh No.
9“1. Federal Laws Relating to Biological Diversity Maintenance. . .........223
9-2. Examples of Federal Ecosystem Conservation Programs . ............225
9“3. Number of U.S. Species at Various Stages of Listing and Recovery
as of 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . *************..*******.*.**************** 229
9-4. Existing and Proposed Crop Advisory Committees of the
National Plant Germplasm System . . . . *,*****..*..***********.*** 235
9“5. Active Breed Associations in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .239
9-6* Microbial Culture Collections in the United States With
243
More Than 1,000 Accessions . . . . . . . . . . . . .
●
●
☛ ☛ ☛ ✎ ☛ ☛ ☛ ☛ ☛ ☛ ☛ ✎ ☛ ☛ ☛ ☛ ☛ ☛ ☛ ☛ ☛ ☛ ☛
Figures
Page
9-1. Principle
of the National Plant
System .. ....234
Chapter 9
Maintaining Biological Diversity
in the United States
●
●
●
Many U.S. public laws and programs addressing the use of natural resources
and the activities of private groups contribute significantly to the conservation
of biological diversity. However, diversity is seldom an explicit objective, and
where it is mentioned, it is not well-defined. The resulting ad hoc coverage
is too disjunct to address the full range of concerns over the loss of diversity.
Existing laws and programs focus on either onsite or offsite conservation, which
impedes establishment of effective linkages between the two general approaches
to maintaining diversity. Links help define common interests and areas of potential cooperation between various institutions—important steps in defining
areas of redundancy, neglect, and opportunity.
Personnel of federally mandated programs that deal directly with maintenance
of biological diversity, such as the National Plant Germplasm System and the
Endangered Species program, have stretched budgets to meet their mandated
responsibilities. It appears, however, that these programs will be unable to continue to meet their mandates without significant increases in funding and
staffing.
Federal legislation authorizes onsite conservation of species and communities and offsite
collection and development of plant and animal species of economic importance. The Federal Government consequently supports programs for agricultural plant and animal
conservation and for onsite conservation of
selected species, but little consideration is given
to a myriad of other diversity maintenance objectives. The numerous Federal onsite programs are not well-coordinated to promote a
comprehensive approach. State and private efforts fill some gaps, but in many cases, maintaining diversity is not a specific objective,
merely a result.
Many organizations or programs discussed
in this chapter focus on one aspect of diversity
maintenance: plant seeds, rare animal breeds,
or onsite conservation of endangered species.
This chapter considers Federal mandates related to diversity conservation, onsite conservation, offsite plant and animal conservation,
and microbial conservation. In each case, Federal, State, and private activities are assessed,
although these categories are arbitrary and, in
fact, biological diversity maintenance programs
frequently fall into more than one category,
221
222
Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
FEDERAL MANDATES AFFECTING BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
CONSERVATION
No Federal law specifically mandates the
maintenance of biological diversity, either offsite or onsite, as a national goal. The term itself is used only in Title VII of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1983 (discussed in ch. 11). A
number of Federal laws require the conservation of resources on Federal lands, however,
or require that consideration be given to resources in Federal agency activities. Offsite
maintenance of agricultural plant germplasm
diversity is mandated indirectly through legislation authorizing the National Plant Germplasm System (discussed later in this chapter).
But offsite maintenance of wild plants, wild animals, and microbial resources is not explicitly
mandated by Federal legislation.
The lack of a comprehensive Federal onsite
policy leads to uncoordinated programs, frequently leaving important gaps in conservation.
Generally, Federal agencies coordinate conservation activities onsite for species that are specifically mentioned in Federal protection laws,
but this coordination frequently does not extend to nonlegislated species. For example, onsite conservation can be coordinated among
Federal agencies for threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-205). But no formal
institutional mechanism exists to coordinate
conservation of thousands of plant, animal, and
microbial species not recognized as threatened
or endangered.
vides little direction to the Agricultural Research Service.
Table 9-1 lists the major Federal mandates
pertinent to diversity maintenance. Species protection laws authorize Federal agencies to manage specific animal populations and their habitats onsite. Legislation on the protection of
natural areas authorizes the acquisition or designation of habitats and communities that help
maintain a diversity of natural areas under Federal stewardship, Federal laws for offsite maintenance of plants authorize conservation and
development (or enhancement) primarily of
plant species that demonstrate potential economic value, Offsite maintenance of domestic
animal germplasm is authorized indirectly by
the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946. The
Endangered Species Act of 1973 is in both categories of table 9-1 because it authorizes wild
plant and animal species protection, habitat
protection, and offsite conservation for those
species considered threatened or endangered
in the United States,
offsite germplasm conservation mandates
are equally vague. For example, the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 is intended to “promote the efficient production and utilization
of products of the soil” (7 U. S.C.A. 427), but
it is interpreted narrowly by the Agricultural
Research Service to mean domesticated plant
species and varieties. Little consideration has
been given to conservation of wild plant
species,
Although the National Forest Management
Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-588) is the only Federal legislation that includes in its mandate the
onsite conservation of a “diversity of plant and
animal communities, ” it offers no explicit congressional direction on the meaning and scope
of onsite maintenance of biological diversity.
Interpretation of this provision has been a difficult process and has involved lengthy consultation with scientists and managers around the
country (50). The U.S. Forest Service ultimately
decided the law gave them a mandate to maintain terrestrial vertebrate species diversity and
the structural timber stands on all Forest Service lands in conjunction with planning and
management processes (44 F.R. 53967-53779),
Whether this interpretation fulfills the congressional intent on conserving diversity has not
been challenged.
Federal mandates give even less attention to
offsite conservation of domesticated and wild
animals. Legislative authority is vague and pro-
Such terms as biological resources, wildlife,
animals, and natural resources can and have
been interpreted differently by Federal agen-
Ch, 9—Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States
●
223
Table 9-1 .—Federal Laws Relating to Biological Diversity Maintenance
C o m m o n
-
n a m e
Resource affected
US Code
wtld
wtld
wild
wild
wild
wild
16
16
16
16
16
16
-
diversity mandates:
a
c
e
y
A
Onsife
L
c
M i g r a t o r y
B i r d
Migratory
Conservation
B!rd
Wildlife
Restoration
B a l d
E a g l e
Whaling
t
o
T r e a t y
Act
A c t
Act
of
of
1937
Act
of
1
1 9 1 8
1929,
.
9
1949,
.
A c t
.
.
.
o f
.
0
.
0
. . . ,
(Plttman-Robertson
P r o t e c t i o n
Convention
f
o f
.
. ,
.,
...
Act)
.,
1 9 4 0
.
.
.
.
Fmh Restoration and Management Act of 1950
( D i n g e l l - J o h n s o n
A c t )
, .
. , ,
. , ,
Anadromous Fish Conservation Act of 1965 (Publlc Law 89-304)
Fur Seal Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-702) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, ,, . . ..,..,.,, ,, .,..,, ,,.
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-205),, . . . .
animals
birds
birds
animals
birds
animals
U.S.C 667, 701
U S.C 703 et seq.
U.S.C 715 et seq.
U. SC. 669 et seq.
U.S.C. 668 et seq.
U SC 916 et seq.
flshenes
flshenes
wild animals
wild animals
wild plants and
animals
16 U.S. C. 777 et seq
16 U S.C 757a-f
16 U SC 1151 et seq.
16 U SC 1361 et seq.
7 U S C. 136
16 USC, 460, 668, 715, 1362, 1371, 1372,
1402, 1531 et seq
flsherles
16 U,S.C. 971, 1362, 1801 et seq.
wild animals
wild animals
16 USC 915 et seq
16 U S.C 2901 et seq
ftsherles
terrestrial/aquatic
habitats
sanctuaries
natural landmarks
wildlife sanctuaries
wilderness areas
16 U.S.C 1823 et seq
16 US.C 694
refuges
river segments
16 U S C, 668dd et seq
16 U S.C. 1271-1287
coastal areas
16 U.S.C. 1431-1434
33 U.S.C. 1401, 1402, 1411-1421, 1441-1444
Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1977
(Public
Law
94-532).
Whale Conservation and
(Public
Law
...
Protection
94-532)
..,
Study
..,
Act
...
..,
of
.,,
1976
.,,
...
.,,.,,.,,
.
.
Fish and Wildllfe Conservation Act of 1980 (Publtc Law W-366). .
Salmon and
(Publlc
F i s h
a n d
Steelhead Conservation and Enhancement Act
Law
96-561)..
.,
W l l d l l f e
C o o r d i n a t i o n
A c t
o f
of
1980
..,
1 9 3 4
.
.
Flshand Game Sanctuary Act of 1934 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hlstorlc Sites, Buildings, and Antlqultles Act of 1935 . . . . . .
Fish
and
Wildlife
Act
of
1956
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Wilderness Act of 1964 (Publlc Law 88-577) ., ., ., .,
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966
(Public Law 91-135) . . . . . . . ,, . . . . . . . . .
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-542) ,,, . .
Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
(Public
Law
92-532)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976
(Publlc
Law
94-579)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
public
domain
lands
National Forest Management Act of 1976 (Publlc Law 94-588) national forest lands
Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (Publlc Law 95-514) public domain lands
Of fsite diversity mandates:
Agricultural Markettng Act of 1946 (Research and Marketing Act) agricultural plants
and animals
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-205) wild plants and
animals
Forest and Rangeland Renewable
(Publlc
Law
95-307),
.
.
Resources Research
.,
.
.
.
.
Act
.
of
.
1978
.
.
NOTE Laws enacted prior to 1957 are cited by Chapter and not”Publlc Law number
SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1986
tree
germplasm
16 USC 694
16 U.S.C. 461-467
15 U.S.C. 713 et seq. 16 U.S.C. 742 et seq.
16 U S C. 1131 et seq
7 USC. 1010-1012
16 U.S.C. 5, 79, 420, 460, 478, 522, 523, 551,
1339
30 U.s.c. 50, 51, 191
40 U.s.c. 319
43 U.S.C. 315, 661, 664, 665, 687, 869, 931,
934-939, 942-944, 946-959, 961-970, 1701,
1702, 1711-1722, 1731-1748, 1753,
1761-1771, 1781, 1782
16 U.S.C. 472, 500, 513, 515, 516, 518, 521,
576, 581, 1600, 1601-1614
16 U.S.C 1332, 1333
43 U SC 1739, 1751- 1753, 1901-1908
5 U.s.c, 5315
7 U.S C, 1006, 1010, 1011. 1924-1927, 1929,
1939-1933, 1941-1943, 1947, 1981, 1983,
1985, 1991, 1992, 2201, 2204, 2212, 26512654, 2661-2668
16 U,S.C. 590, 1001-1005
42 U.S.C. 3122
7 U.S.C. 136
16 U.S.C, 460, 668, 715, 1362, 1371, 1372,
1402, 1531 et seq.
16 USC, 1641-1647
224 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
cies. Wildlife, for example, has been defined
in a number of ways, including the following:
mammals that are hunted or trapped
(game);
all mammals—the word animal is sometimes used interchangeably with mammal;
● all animals, both vertebrates and invertebrates, excluding fish; and
●
all animals, both vertebrates and invertebrates, including fish (65).
These definitional differences are further evidence of the lack of a comprehensive Federal
approach to these issues.
ONSITE BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS
U.S. onsite programs seem to have one of
three main objectives: 1) maintenance of diverse
habitats or ecosystems, 2) preservation of individual species through habitats’ protection, and
3) restoration of habitats to their natural condition. These objectives are not necessarily exclusive. Safeguarding communities and ecosystems could help protect rare species. Protecting
the habitat of a species may conserve an ecosystem or community. And restoring habitats
could enhance the diversity of species within
an ecosystem.
Ecosystem Diversity Maintenance
Maintaining ecosystems is the only way to
ensure the continued viability and evolutionary processes of the organisms within these
areas (see ch. 5). Numerous mechanisms exist
at the Federal, State, and local level to manage
land and water areas for their maintenance. The
net result is the continued existence of a diversity of ecosystems in the United States.
Ecosystem diversity maintenance within Federal, State, and private holdings depends on the
degree of protection given to the area, its size,
and the impact of external influences. Protection of ecosystem diversity within land and
water designations ranges from scant to strict.
The use of land and waters in the National
Wilderness Preservation System is greatly restricted—generally, motorized vehicles and
long-term human activities are prohibited.
Some wilderness areas are regularly patrolled
and violators cited. Others receive little regulatory attention. At the other extreme, estuarine sanctuaries are not required to have any
Federal protection; jurisdiction over any use
is determined exclusively by the States. One
preliminary assessment concluded that privately owned, legally secured, single-purpose
nature reserves offer the greatest protection to
biological diversity (10),
The size of a designated area and proximity
to other land designations also influence its contribution to onsite diversity (10). Some Research
Natural Areas (RNAs), for example, are wellprotected but may be very small (the smallest
is only 2 acres), Numerous vertebrates and
larger plants would not be able to survive and
reproduce successfully in a small “island” habitat; therefore, small RNAs contribute little to
community diversity maintenance.
Natural areas are influenced by human activities on surrounding land that reduce the area’s
ability to sustain natural biological communities. The National Park Service has reported
that 55 percent of the threats to park natural
resources come from influences outside park
boundaries (64). The National Wildlife Refuge
System also noted that influences from adjacent areas were harming the fish and wildlife
within refuges (63). Concern over such threats
has prompted introduction of legislation to minimize negative effects of activities conducted
in adjacent areas,
Table 9-2 provides a summary of the Federal
ecosystem conservation programs in which
designated areas are maintained in a relatively
natural condition, The land designations included are only some of more than 100 categories used by Federal agencies, Some programs
involve more than one agency, such as the Re-
Ch. 9—Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States
Table 9-2.—Examples of Federal Ecosystem
Number
Program title and responsible
of units
Federal agency or agencies
Nationa/ Natural Landmarks
10
National Park Service . . . . . . . . . . .
48
U.S. Forest Service . . . . . . . . . . . . .
45
Bureau of Land Management. .
Fish and Wildlife Service . . . . . . 3.15
1
Federal Aviation Administration
1
Department of Energy . . . . . .
16
Department of Defense. . . . . . . . . .
3
Department of Transportation . . .
1
Bureau of Reclamation . . . . . .
Research Natural Areas
66
National Park Service ... . . . .
U.S. Forest Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
2
Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . .
Fish and Wildlife Service . . . . . . . 194
18
Bureau of Land Management. .
4
Department of Defense. . . . . . . . . .
4
Tennessee Valley Authority .
1
Bureau of Indian Affairs . . . . . . .
Wild and Scenic Rivers
National Park Service . . . . . . . . . . .
23
Bureau of Land Management. . .
15
U.S. Forest Service . . . . . . . . . .
23
Fish and Wildlife Service ... .
7
Biosphere Reservesa (Man and the
Biosphere)
National Park Service . . . . . . .
U.S. Forest Service . . . . . . .
Fish and Wildlife Service
Bureau of Land Management,
Agriculture Research Service . .
National Oceanic and
Acres
(millions)
0.95
0.69
1056
0.003
0.13
0.19
0.014
0.032
2,3
0.184
0.75
1,94
0.048
0.006
0.0001
00009
1,927
miles
1,367
m i Ies
2,098
m i Ies
1,043
m i Ies
.
.
.
.
.
25
18
4
1
2
25.09
1.63
2.81
0034
0.209
0.633
Administration
3
Wilderness Areas
U.S. Forest Service ... . . . . . .
Bureau of Land Management.
National
Park
Service
.
.
Fish and Wildlife Service . .
332
22
38
65
31,84
0.37
36.78
19,33
Nat\onal Parks
National Park Service . . . . . . . . . .
337
79,44 .
Atmospheric
●
225
Conservation Programs
Program title and responsible
Federal agency or agencies
National Monuments
National Park Service . . . . . . . . . . .
Number
of units
A-c res
(millions)
77
4.72
National Preserves
National Park Service . . . . . . . . .
Nat/onal Rivers
12
21.10
National Park Service . . . . . . . .
4
National Forests
U.S. Forest Service . . . . . . . . . .
Experimental Forests, Ranges,
and Watersheds
U.S. Forest Service . . . . . . . . . .
152
0.359
190,4
88
0.240
Experimental Ecological Reserves
U.S. Forest Service . . . . .
Fish and Wildlife Service . . . . . .
Bureau of Land Management. . . .
National Oceanic and
27
2
2
0.219
0.057
0.022
Atmospheric Administration
Agriculture Research Servtce . . .
National Park Service . . . . . . . . .
Tennessee Valley Authority . . . .
Smithsonian Institution . .
1
4
1
1
1
0.006
0.100
0.093
0.069
0,001
National Wildlife Refuges
Fish and Wildlife Service . . . . . . .
424
Outstanding Natural Areas
Management
Bureau of Land Management. . . .
37
Areas of Critica/ Environmental
Concern
Bureau of Land Management. . . . .
Marine Sanctuaries
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration . .
89.9
0.377
1.94
236
7
Estuarine Sanctuaries
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
17
National Environmental Research
Parks
Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . .
5
2,322 (sq.
nautical
miles)
268,762 (sq.
nautical
m i Ies)
1.15
more than one aaency has res~onslblltty for an area acreaqe has been dlwded eWJall Y and each a9enc Y receives credit for an area
a
Because biosphere reserves ;re managed by severa~ agenc!es slmul tan eously the total number (53) I n the table exceeds [he actual n u m ber of reserves (43)
NOTE When
SOURCE Adapted from W D Crumpacker Status and Trends of U S Natural Ecosystems OTA commissioned paper. 1985, M Bean. ‘Federal Laws and Pollcles
Perta(wng to the Maintenance of Blolog{cal Dlverslty on Federal and Pr!vate Lands, OTA commissioned paper. 1985
search Natural Area Program. Other programs
are under the jurisdiction of just one agency,
such as the National Forest System.
Few programs are designed specifically to
maintain biological diversity, even though some
programs may indirectly have this as one of
their objectives. One exception is the Man and
the Biosphere Program, coordinated through
the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which considers the onsite maintenance of biological
diversity a major goal (17). The U.S. network
of 43 biosphere reserves provides a framework
for linking complementary protected areas in
particular biogeographical regions and for conducting research on strategies for managing
ecosystems to conserve diversity (22). The U.S.
program, unlike programs in other countries,
is strictly voluntary; designation is used mainly
to encourage cooperation and increase use for
scientific and educational purposes,
Research Natural Areas and Experimental
Ecological Areas are designated by appropriate Federal agencies and the National Science
Foundation, respectively, to conserve natural
ecological communities for research in natural community manipulation. A Federal Committee on Ecological Reserves was established
in 1974 to coordinate designation of these sites,
in part to ensure that each community type was
included in the system (4). The coordinating
committee still exists nominally, but it no longer
provides an advisory function. Designations of
Research Natural Areas are currently determined independently by each Federal agency.
A variety of management options exist within
programs that consider diversity an objective,
For example, national forests are directed by
law (National Forest Management Act) to be
managed in a way that sustains plant and animal diversity, At the individual forest level, supervisors have flexibility in determining how
and to what extent vertebrate species diversity
will be considered in forest operations.
Similarly, National Wildlife Refuges and National Parks consider maintaining diversity an
objective, although this attitude is not supported
by specific mandate. National Wildlife Refuge
managers may try to maintain a diversity of species with the existing habitat or may manipulate areas to create a diversity of habitats, In
some cases, refuges are managed exclusively
for a single species. National Parks have to bal-
Ch. 9—Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States 227
—
●
.-
will of the individual landowner. National Natural Landmarks on Federal- or State-controlled
lands require the cooperation of the authorized
agency to ensure that protection is considered
in the area’s management.
An attempt has been made to identify the
amount of potential ecosystem diversity that
is protected in Federal landholdings. Potential
ecosystem diversity is that which would be expected to develop on a site under natural conditions. According to an assessment that considered areas of approximatey 23,000 acres or
larger, lands of four agencies failed to include
22 percent of the recognized ecosystem types
(i.e., 69 out of 315), These four agencies were
the National Park Service, Forest Service, Fish
and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management. Another 29 percent of these ecosystem types were only minimally included (9).
Since this analysis assessed only potential diversity, it probably underestimates existing ecosystem diversity in the landholdings (9). The
largest number of unrepresented types were in
Texas and Oklahoma, which have relatively
large amounts of ecosystem diversity but relatively few Federal lands.
Another analysis of the same Federal holdings, using a different classification scheme for
potential ecosystem diversity, obtained similar results (12). These two studies indicate that
any attempt to include all ecosystem types
within Federal programs would require considerable expansion of existing holdings. For
the national wilderness preservation system,
however, almost half the unrepresented types
in that system could be added from existing
Federal agency holdings (12).
Contributions of these Federal programs to
maintaining diversity depends on the degree
of protection offered for each designation (10).
For example, National Natural Landmarks are
designated to identify and conserve unique,
rare, or representative communities in the
United States. Designation of these sites does
not, however, include protecting the site from
human alteration. Approximately half the National Natural Landmarks exist on private
lands, where conservation depends on the good
Natural area management programs also occur at the State level. State parks, forests, and
protected sites may be managed for one or a
few resources, but they help preserve some remnants of diversity, particularly when they are
managed in conjunction with private or Federal reserves. State designations could also be
wildlife areas, fishing areas, university research
stations, botanic sites, school and other public
lands, or special districts (e. g., a water management district) (10).
228 “ Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
Private holdings also contribute to maintaining diversity, especially through the protection
of remnant areas. Many of the remaining tall
grass prairies in the Midwest, for example, are
privately owned by individuals or as railroad
right-of-ways. private land trusts lease parcels
of land for biological or historical significance,
which may contribute to onsite diversity maintenance. (For further details, see ref. 55.) Many
of the land parcels are small and isolated, with
little attention given expressly to diversity maintenance, but they do contribute to the patchwork of natural areas in the United States. An
assessment of the protection associated with
all these Federal, State, local, and private land
designations is under way (11).
One private institution with an explicit goal
of natural area preservation is The Nature Conservancy (TNC), TNC is a nonprofit organization with chapters in most States. Its objectives
are to identify species and community diversity onsite, purchase areas or work with landholders to protect the species or community,
and manage areas to ensure the continued existence of the species or community.
TNC, through State Natural Heritage Programs (discussed in ch, 5 and in the next section), conducts field investigations of rare,
threatened, or endangered organisms and communities across the Nation. The information
generated from these surveys helps identify
organisms that should be given Federal or State
protected status, as well as habitats and communities where special attention is necessary.
TNC, one of the largest private landholders
in the United States, owns 895 preserves (39).
In addition, it works with Federal, State, and
local governments to designate protected areas.
Thus, the organization, through a grassroots
approach, is effectively identifying and maintaining a diversity of rare species or community types in the United States.
Species Habitat Prosection
The most comprehensive national program
for the protection of species diversity and their
habitats is the Endangered Species Program,
authorized under the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, The program authorizes the Secretary
of the Interior, through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the Secretary of
Commerce, through the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), to protect endangered
and threatened species of plants and animals
in the United States and elsewhere.
The program, administered by the Office of
Endangered Species, has several phases: listing species, developing recovery plans, and
managing species’ habitats. Species are listed
as threatened or endangered when sufficient
information on the status and distribution of
the species suggests significant declines in population or range or both and when an extensive
public review has been completed. In general,
a species is considered a candidate between the
time a petition to propose a species is received
and the listing process is completed. In addition, many candidate lists are put together
through expert review by the regional and
Washington offices of the FWS,
Lists of candidates are published periodically
in the Federal Register. (The most recent lists
were published in September 1985 for vertebrates and plants and in May 1984 for invertebrates.) To date, approximately 3,9oo species
and subspecies of plants, vertebrates, and invertebrates are candidates compared with approximately 385 species already listed (18).
When a species is listed, the next step is development of a formal recovery plan outlining
the responsibilities of all parties with jurisdiction over the species’ habitat and their management roles. Recovery plans are advisory documents to the Secretary of the Interior, not
binding agreements. Recovery plans are approved or awaiting approval for approximately
two-thirds of the species listed (see table 9-3),
Implementation of recovery activities, however,
has been slow (13).
The thrust of the Endangered Species Program is protection through proper management
of a species’ habitat. Most management activities are carried out by Federal and State agencies with jurisdiction over the habitats, not by
FWS (unless the species occur on National
—.
Ch. 9—Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States “ 229
—
.-
Table 9-3.— Number of U.S. Species at Various
Stages of Listing and Recovery as of 1985
Species Identified as candidates for listing
Candidates with completed status research
Species Ilsted as threatened or endangered .
Species with approved recovery plans . . .
Species
recovering
...
3,908
964
383
223
22
SOURCE J Fttzgeralc-and G M Meese Sawng Endangered Spec/es (Wash, n g
(on DC Defenders of Wlldl!fe 1986I
Wildlife Refuges]. These habitats, often called
critical habitats—because the species depend
on these areas for survi~ral or reproduction—
are designated either in conjunction with, or
subsequent to, the listing of a species. To date,
critical-habitat designations have been made
for only about 70 listed species (13),
A federally listed threatened or endangered
species is protected from any federally authorized activity that may jeopardize its continued
existence, even when the activity occurs entirely on private land (4), Any Federal agency
undertaking or authorizing a project in the
range of an endangered species must consult
with FWS or NMFS to ensure that the impacts
on a listed species tvill be minimal. The consultation requirement is one of the most effective parts of the program in protecting threatened or endangered species (4). It is one of the
least well-funded areas of the Endangered Species Program, however.
To a limited degree, efforts to manage a
threatened or endangered species involve offsite techniques, such as artificial propagation
of plants and captive breeding programs for animals. Efforts to recover several species of large
birds (e.g., the peregrine falcon and whooping
crane) demonstrate the success of such techniques, In some cases, captive breeding programs provided the opportunity for species to
be reintroduced into their historic range.
—
protected under the law, but it provides insufficient protection for those that are candidates,
The program is criticized for the slow pace of
candidate review in the listing process. Some
animals and plants may have become extinct
between the time they were proposed as candidates and their review by FWS (4,18). The
Texas Henslow’s sparrow and the Schweinitz’s
Waterweed are two such examples (31). This
delay underscores the need to list species or
take other action in time to prevent their loss,
By publishing lists of candidates in the Federal Register, the Endangered Species Office
has succeeded in bringing public attention to
these candidates. Now the office is working
with other Federal agencies to promote consideration of candidate species in agency planning.
However, no legislative authority currently protects candidates from adverse impacts of Federal agency actions.
Underfunding and understaffing of the Office of Endangered Species hampers its ability
to implement listing, recovery, and consultation objectives (18). With an increased budget,
resources would be applied initially to develop
recovery plans for all listed species. Consultation among agencies is also severely underfunded. Any funding increase to the Endangered Species Program could be gradual, over
5 years perhaps, so the office could expand existing program efforts. Program growth might
involve annual increases of $2 million for State
grant programs, $500,000 for species listing,
$1.5 million for consultation, and $4 million
for recovery plans (54).
In addition to Federal activities, State agencies may receive Federal funding to implement
species-specific recovery and management efforts. To date, 41 States have approved programs for animals, and 17 have programs for
plants (4).
Other programs identify and protect selected
species, sometimes known as public trust resources, designated in Federal mandates, Examples include migratory bird management
and anadromous fish hatchery programs, The
programs provide little protection for overall
species diversity. The Fish and Wildlife Service, the major Federal agency with authority
to manage biological resources, is currently
focusing its limited personnel and budget al locat ions primarily on pubIic trust resources.
Overall, the Endangered Species Program effectively maintains species already listed and
One Federal program focusing on public trust
resources is the National Wildlife Refuge Sys-
230 “ Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
tern, administered by FWS (3). Many of the refuges have been created by revenues from annual waterfowl hunting permits. Consequently,
most refuges are purchased to protect habitats
for migratory birds. Refuges may also protect
habitats of threatened or endangered species
(e.g., Atwater Prairie Chicken National Wildlife Refuge in Texas) or large mammals (National Bison Range in Montana), with funding
from the Land and Water Conservation Fund,
a land trust funded by the sales of grazing
leases, offshore oil, mineral rights, and other
sources on Federal lands. The Land and Water
Conservation Fund is the principal source of
money for land purchases by Federal agencies.
Refuges may provide habitats for a diversity
of species, but the designation of the refuge is
to benefit one or a few species of special interest, Woodland habitats along some east coast
refuges, for example, have been converted to
grassland-wetland habitats to enhance waterfowl at the expense of overall diversity.
State programs also tend to focus on selected
species of fish, wildlife, and plants, although
the emphasis differs somewhat from Federal
programs. States generally receive revenues
from hunters, fishermen, and Federal grants,
for management and conservation of harvested
species. Interest in nongame species is increasing, however. State agencies, through referendums, are expanding their fish and wildlife programs to a wider array of species’ conservation
efforts. Public pressure to conserve and manage
nongame populations and increased budgets
to implement programs (62) are increasing State
efforts. However, State nongame programs are
funded by add-on monies from tax checkoffs,
which hampers the ability of most States to adequately fund or maintain personnel for their
nongame programs. In addition, this type of
funding severely hampers long-range planning
and implementation of nongame projects. An
alternative to this type of funding is to provide
monies from the State’s general fund, as is being done by the Florida Fresh Water Game and
Fish Commission (31).
Another State activity is the Natural Heritage
program, a set of public and private programs
to protect diversity in each State (46), Each program develops an inventory of the State’s rare
species and ecosystems and identifies priority
actions. The Nature Conservancy establishes
and initially supports the programs. In some
instances, States will take over the program devised by TNC and incorporate activities into
the State government. In other instances, States
and TNC share responsibilities.
State Natural Heritage Programs and databases are designed to be compatible so national
information on species diversity can be collated, As of February 1986,44 States had contracted for the program and 26 of these had assumed administration of the program from TNC
(30), The Conservancy also maintains four noncontracted programs and has separate contracts
with the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Navaho Nation, and Puerto Rico,
Programs’ abilities to protect diversity are
limited by their resources and the degree of influence they have in the State governments. The
Rhode Island program, for instance, although
part of the State government, receives its funding from the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service, Thus, its inventory is primarily limited to
species identified by the Endangered Species
Act, A lack of resources and influence hamper
this program’s ability to comment on State and
Federal developments and State land-acquisitions. The South Carolina program, also part
of the State government, is supported by a
$400,000 State grant fund and income-tax
checkoff (21). with these resources, the program
maintains a larger inventory, buys and manages
land, and comments on all relevant State and
Federal developments.
programs that are not part of a State government have fewer resources and opportunities
to affect Federal and State decisions. Two further constraints are the limited information that
programs are able to collect and the lack of a
national classification system for natural ecosystems.
Nevertheless, State Natural Heritage Programs perform a function unfulfilled by existing institutions. The continuing inventory of
rare species and ecosystems enables the pro-
Ch. 9—Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States “ 231
tection of the most important biologically diverse lands and the early identification and
modification of potentially destructive development plans.
A variety of private conservation organizations work to protect species of particular interest. The National Audubon Society, for example, maintains some 60 refuges to protect
the habitat of endangered species. Many of the
first refuges were designated to protect marine
and coastal waterbird colonies ( I 5). More recently, sanctuaries are being acquired to protect inland habitats and to restrict development.
These areas provide refuge for an array of species, in addition to the key species for which
the sanctuary was purchased.
Conservation organizations such as Izaak
Walton League of America help maintain diversity through an advocacy role. These groups
work with the U.S. Congress and Federal and
State agencies to develop laws and programs
that reflect the importance of maintaining species. Like Federal programs, diversity conservation is not a stated objective of most nonprofit
organizations (except TNC), but their efforts aid
in maintaining species and habitat diversity
on site.
Additional groups working for species preservation include single-species organizations
or foundations, such as the Carolina Bird Club,
Desert Fishes Council, or Trout Unlimited (47).
These offices work to promote habitat protection for these organisms, manage habitats for
particular species, and advocate survival of
these species through Federal and State agencies. The net result is species maintenance and
conservation of particular components of biological diversity.
A multitude of nonprofit organizations also
function at the local and State level. These
groups tend to be small, poorly financed, and
focused on a particular area or species of concern. (For further discussion, see ref. 59. ) Such
organizations generally do not have biological
diversity as an exclusive objective, but they contribute to the maintenance of biological diversity through their achievernents of preserving
a specific species o f concern or its habitat.
Onsite Restoration
Another facet of maintaining biological diversity is the restoration of degraded sites. The field
is relatively new, few institutions have welldeveloped programs, and complete restoration
has been difficult to achieve. (See ch. 5 for discussion of restoration technologies. )
A key Federal legislation that directly provides for revegetation after a disturbance is the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
of 1977, also known as S MC RA (Public Law
95-87). Section 515(b)( 19) states that mining
operations shall:
. . . establish . . . a diverse, effective, permanent
vegetation cover of the same seasonal variety
native to the area of land to be affected.
The number and composition of species is often
suggested by past management practices. The
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Forest Service, and Soil Conservation Service have each
developed vegetative mixtures for various types
of disturbances that can be economically managed and are likely to succeed. There is a problem, however, with the definition of “native.”
BLM, for instance, interprets native to include
introduced exotics that have been established
within the area before the project was assessed.
Section 515(b)(2) states that the mine operation shall:
. . . restore the land affected to a condition capable of supporting the use which it was capable of supporting prior to any mining, or higher
or better uses.
Thus, SMCRA provides an incentive to develop
techniques for establishing native plant species.
The natural diversity aspect of SMCRA could
be strengthened at the State level by requiring
the use of native species in revegetat ion
mixtures.
A few Federal agencies are initiating restoration efforts. The Forest Service is mandated
by the National Forest Management Act of 1976
to replant all lands in the National Forest System that do not regenerate naturally after timber harvesting. Tree monoculture are most
1ikely to be planted, thus reducing diversity in-
232 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
stead of restoring the area’s original diversity.
The National Park Service (NPS) has instituted
small-scale restoration projects, mainly for areas
affected by past tourist use or other disturbances (32). An exception to the typical smallscale NPS restoration project is the legislatively
mandated (Public Law 95-250) Redwood Creek
rehabilitation project in Redwood National
Park. The project is developing rehabilitation
techniques for 36,000 acres of previously logged
and seriously eroded slopes in the redwoodmixed conifer ecosystem.
The Fish and Wildlife Service and Environmental Protection Agency identify water bodies polluted by chemicals or acid rain that are
suitable for restoration. In lakes damaged by
acid rain in the Northeast, for example, FWS
has spent $5 million in a liming effort to reduce
lake acidity and restore aquatic life (32). The
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is researching
wetland restoration techniques to mitigate development projects in wetlands,
One future opportunity to restore diversity
is by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s
(USDA) implementation of the conservation reserve provision of the Food Security Act of 1985
(Public Law 99-198). The conservation reserve:
. . . authorizes USDA to contract with farmers
to remove 40 million acres of erodible land from
row crop production. . . , The retired acres
would be planted to grasses, legumes, and trees
to reduce erosion and enhance wildlife (66).
This provision could be strengthened if restoration of vegetation in riparian areas were included in the legislation, The reconstruction
of debt portion of this bill may be more beneficial to diversity. It allows the farmer to offer
up land for not less than 50 years to be used
to lower the debt.
Private efforts may be the leading contributors to restoring biological diversity. Although
much reclamation is being carried out by industries and consulting firms in compliance
with regulations, work is also being done by
small organizations and individuals motivated
by esthetic and environmental interests.
Universities also are conducting research to develop techniques for restoring different ecosystems, Recently, restoration has been identified
as a focus of research at the Cary Arboretum
in New York and at the Center for Restoration
Ecology at the University of Wisconsin (32),
OFFSITE DIVERSITY MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS
Federal programs to maintain diversity offsite generally involve germplasm of agriculturally or economically important plants and animals, Less attention is given to wild plants and
animals at the Federal level than at the State
or private level. State efforts to conserve a diversity of plants, animals, or micro-organisms offsite are poorly documented and tend to be
widely dispersed. Private institutions conduct
numerous activities directly related to the maintenance of biological diversity offsite. Consequently, offsite conservation of many biological resources occurs only as a result of private
efforts. For ease in discussion, offsite maintenance of biological diversity is divided into
plant, animal, and micro-organism programs,
although programs overlap considerably.
Plans Programs
Historically, responsibilities for maintaining
plant resources at the Federal level included
only domesticated plants under the jurisdiction
of USDA. Although recent legislation has included some wild plant species (e. g., Forest and
Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act,
Rural Development Act), the focus of USDA
is still reflected in programs to maintain croprelated germplasm,
Agricultural
Plants
The most significant program is the National
Plant Germplasm System (NPGS)—a diffuse
network of USDA, State, and private institutions, private industry, and individuals. NPGS
Ch. 9—Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States
activities include acquiring, maintaining, and
improving plant germplasm. Various components of the system also conduct research that
supports preservation of genetic diversity, acquisition of new materials, and use of stored
germplasm (see figure 9-l).
Work done by NPGS is in response to specific national needs. Agricultural plant exploration and development of new crop species
led to a formal Federal program (Section of Seed
and Plant Introduction) in 1898 within USDA
(28). Recognizing that germplasm resources
were being lost due to inadequate maintenance
facilities, Congress enacted the Agricultural
Marketing Act in 1946, authorizing regional
centers to maintain and develop plant germplasm (27).
Federal contributions to NPGS currently are
administered through the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and the Cooperative State
Research Service (CSRS). The ARS National
Program Staff in Beltsville, MD, coordinates
these various activities and facilities:
●
●
Advisory Committees: The National Plant
Germplasm Committee and individual
crop advisory committees provide both policy and technical advice to administrators
and curators of NPGS. The National Plant
Genetic Resources Board advises the Secretary of Agriculture on resource issues
and serves as liaison between NPGS and
the International Board for Plant Genetic
Resources.
Plant Genetics and Germplasm Institute:
This USDA/ARS facility includes the following:
—the Plant Introduction Office that coordinates the acquisition of new materials,
assignment of introduction numbers,
and distribution to appropriate facilities;
—the Plant Molecular Genetics Laboratory,
devoted to developing methods for using
germplasm to improve crops;
—the Germplasm Resources Information
Network (GRIN) Database Management
Unit, responsible for developing and
maintaining the computer-based system
that is intended to contain passport,
●
●
●
233
evaluation, and inventory information on
NPGS germplasm; and
—the National Small Grains Collection.
National Seed Storage Laborator~: The National Seed Storage Laboratory (NSSL) in
Ft. Collins, CO, is designed to be the principal storage facility for agricultural crop
seeds in the NPGS, Ideally, all plant varieties are stored at NSSL as base collections.
NSSL is responsible for monitoring the viability of seeds within its collections as well
as seeds stored in active collections. The
laboratory does not evaluate its samples,
however, and depends on other facilities
in the network to regenerate samples when
germination declines,
Germplasm Collections: National responsibility for maintaining major crops is
divided among four Regional Plant Introduction Stations (RPISS). Many important
collections are not associated with an RPIS,
such as those for soybeans, cotton, sugar
crops, and small grains. Germplasm that
must be clonally maintained is the responsibility of the five newly established and
four developing national clonal repositories. Several collections of genetic or mutant stocks that possess specific traits exist, Although not generally used in
breeding, such stocks have been important
resources for research on cytogenetics,
physiology, biochemistry, and molecular
genetics of crops.
The mission of NPGS is to acquire, maintain,
evaluate, and make accessible as wide a range
of genetic diversity as possible in the form of
seed and clonal materials to crop breeders and
plant scientists (60), The scientific expertise on
germplasm maintenance is among the best
available,
Assessments of NPGS during the past 5 years
have highlighted shortcomings in coordination,
communication, storage facilities, maintenance
of seed viability, and staffing levels (7,56,57,60).
Facilities such as NSSL, for example, have been
criticized for inadequately maintaining seed
stocks and for storage limitations. A 1981 study
by the General Accounting Office (GAO) found
that NPGS curators sent only half the seeds
234 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
a
n
a
~--
.—— — --——- 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
●
6
2c
—
I
I
I
I
I
☛
●
☛
☛
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
☛
Ch. 9—Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States
from active collections to the NSSL (56). And
the study determined that approximately 63 percent of the active germplasm collections were
stored in inadequate containers or in undesirable climates, The result, GAO concluded, may
be the loss of at least one-fourth of the germplasm resources held by NPGS.
Efforts have been made to address some of
these deficiencies through reallocation of resources, construction of new facilities, and centralization of responsibilities, but the need to
improve germplasm maintenance remains,
Recommendations to improve NPGS have been
hampered by the diffuse nature of the network
and by inadequate resources.
The system has been cited as needing a
clearer division of responsibility y for maintain-
ing and evaluating germplasm collections (7),
Because it is a cooperative network, lines of
authority are frequently unclear, and there may
be too many levels of authority to adequately
administer a national program on germplasm
(60). The result is a general lack of understanding of how decisions concerning NPGS are
made by ARS. Such decisions can be further
complicated by the competing interests and
concerns of other cooperative Federal (i. e.,
CSRS] or State agencies that may provide program support.
The ARS staff has recently increased its input into budget allocations for Federal facilities
and has attempted to centralize program responsibilities into one office (42). Further
centralization could provide increased coordination of the system’s collections, improved
communication on available germplasm diversity (especially through the GRIN database), and
more effective identification of funding priorities.
One area that has received insufficient funds
is regeneration of seeds with reduced viability. Although NSSL monitors seed viability, it
sends seeds that germinate poorly to another
facility for growing-out. If viability is found to
be low, it may be difficult to obtain a regenerated sample. If NPGS does not have specific
responsibility for a sample, NSSL must locate
a willing donor, but it does not have funds to
●
235
pay for grow-outs. A comprehensive system to
support regeneration of stored seed has been
hampered by competing interests for available
resources.
The crop advisory committees {CACS) in
NPGS were developed to improve communication about crop-specific needs (see table 9-4).
CACS are comprised of scientists from NPGS,
private industry, and the academic community.
They provide technical expertise to the NationaI
Plant Genetic Resources Board, the National
Plant Germplasm Committee, ARS staff, and
NPGS curators. In some cases, such as the pear
collection at the national clonal repository in
Corvallis, OR, CACS advise the facility in charge
of a particular crop (7].
CACS are growing in importance and influence within NPGS (45). Committees have been
Table 9.4.—Existing and Proposed Crop Advisory
Committees of the National Plant Germplasm System
Existing committees
Alfalfa
Barley
Carya
Citrus
Clover
Cotton
Crucifer
Grass
Juglans
Maize
Malus
Oats
Pea
Peanut
Phaseolus
Potato
Prunus
Pyrus
Rice
Root and bulb
Small fruits
Sorghum
Soybean
Sugar beet
Sugarcane
Sunflower
Sweet potato
Tomato
Vigna
Vine crops
Vitis
Wheat
Proposed committees
Asparagus
Florist crops
Leafy vegetables
Tropical fruit and nuts
Woody ornaments
SOURCE U S Department of Agrlcultu~e, Agricultural Research Serv~ce Pla~t
Genetics and Germplasm Inst!tute Germplasm Resources Information
Network, Progress Update, February 1986
236 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
asked to identify gaps in the diversity of crop
species, coordinate collection and maintenance
needs, develop priorities for crops, and assess
the data available on accessions. However, no
provision exists within NPGS to ensure that the
necessary meetings of a CAC will be held or
reports developed. To date, NPGS has relied
on the dedication and commitment of the scientists involved to accomplish these tasks, Although some CACS have achieved a great deal,
others have been slow to organize and develop
their activities. ARS has argued that funding
or other support for CACS is unnecessary, but
OTA has found the committees feel they would
be more effective if funds for frequent and regular meetings were available.
The diverse nature of NPGS can also be seen
in its different roles of providing service functions of maintaining germplasm and undertaking research programs. Functions such as growing out seeds, evaluating accessions, assessing
viability, and managing information are service-oriented, Many Federal and State scientists
within NPGS, however, are evaluated on a system that can provide disincentives for such
activities. The problem can become acute when
decreased funding means that research staff
must handle service functions.
The need for more personnel and funding has
increased with the amount of germplasm held
by NPGS facilities, Concern about characterization and evaluation of accessions has created
additional burdens for many facilities. Therefore, proposed changes should consider improved support of the basic operations along
with plans for new construction.
The National Seed Storage Laboratory continues to need improvement (7,56,57,58,60).
Within 2 years, the existing facility will exceed
its storage capacity. Collections at the RPISS
and other facilities are witholding some accessions from NSSL. But keeping them creates an
additional burden for facilities not equipped
for long-term storage. Without expanded space,
NSSL cannot provide the necessary backup
storage for NPGS germplasm collections.
In addition, NSSL storage rooms were built
before the use of subfreezing and cryogenic
storage. OTA found that the NSSL collections
require upgraded facilities with access to modern storage technologies and backup refrigeration systems. One proposed NSSL facility
would quadruple present storage capacity and
enable use of modern technologies. Funds for
construction, however, are not available in the
Administration’s current budget (4.5).
Although many long-standing deficiencies
have been addressed by administrative changes
such as creation of the crop advisory committees, future improvements of NPGS will require
additional funds for facilities, as well as personnel, equipment, and supplies to support
basic operations.
Most States do not formally fund offsite germplasm maintenance activities independent of
NPGS, California, an exception, began a program in 1980 to conserve the genetic diversity
of important plant and animal species within
the State (33). The California Gene Resources
Conservation Program, which is currently inactive, raised awareness of the need to conserve
germplasm resources, A program at the University of California at Davis will conduct research
on germplasm resources in the State and provide funds for orphan collections, those that
may be vulnerable due to the death or retirement of principal curators (49).
Private individuals and grassroots organizations are preserving a significant amount of
agricultural crop diversity not found in governmental collections (20,44,59), The Seed Savers
Exchange, for example, helps preserve heirloom vegetable varieties and other vegetable
seeds not available from the Federal Government or commercial producers. The exchange
of seeds among its 450 members helps ensure
the survival of some 3,500 plant varieties, most
of which can be found only within the organization. (For further discussion of Seed Savers
Exchange and other grassroots efforts to preserve agricultural plant germplasm, see ref. 59.)
Private industry also maintains plant germplasm in conjunction with developmental programs for new crop varieties or as marketed
seed varieties, United Brands, for instance,
maintains the most extensive collection of
Ch. 9—Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States 237
●
Wild Plants
No Federal equivalent to NPGS exists for wild
plant species. Although NPGS maintains some
wild plant germplasm, this is clearly a secondary function and generally involves relatives
of cultivated crops or species economically
valuable, such as ornamental or florist crops.
Most wild plant diversity is stored in living
collections such as botanic gardens and arboretums.
Federal programs that make some contribution to maintaining wild plant diversity do not
cover the majority of plant diversity, USDA’s
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) maintains some
wild species (those with known or suspected
value to soil or water conservation) in its Plant
Materials Centers. Species not being used in
plant development programs are sent to NSSL
(52).
The Forest Service maintains germplasm of
tree species with known or potential commercial value (5). The Smithsonian Institution maintains an extensive collection of North American
wild plant species. The Office of Endangered
Species provides some funding for offsite maintenance and propagation of threatened or endangered plant species.
banana germplasm (23). Although the objective
in most cases is not the maintenance of genetic
diversity, industries could maintain germplasm
resources that contribute to the overall plant
diversity in the United States.
Support can be provided by private industry
by granting funds, equipment, facilities, or land.
The Rhododendron Species Foundation, for example, maintains an extensive collection o f
wild rhododendrons at a facility donated by the
Weyerhaeuser Co. (59), A grant to NPGS by Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., of $1.5 million over 5 years will support the evaluation
of Latin American corn varieties (2)—work not
possible under present NPGS budgets.
The contributions of current State efforts are
unclear. Generally, State programs are coordinated through the State Department of Agriculture and focus on species with some economic importance to the State—e. g., timber
varieties, shrubs, and grasses useful in land
reclamation, along with important wildlife
foods.
The most significant offsite programs for
germplasm are financed and managed in the
private sector (59). One such effort, the Center
for Plant Conservation (CPC), is beginning a
network of botanic gardens and arboretums to
conserve all threatened and endangered wild
plant species. CPC, located at the Arnold Arboretum in Massachusetts, has solicited the participation of 14 major botanic institutions
across the country to act as regional centers
for wild plant diversity. By establishing a data
network, CPC hopes to identify plant species
238 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
Regardless of their objectives, these botanic
institutions and the individuals who run them
contribute to the maintenance of plant diversity. However, no coordination exists for information exchange or evaluation of contributions, Although it is too early to assess results,
the Center for Plant Conservation may provide
significant coordination of such efforts.
One possible way to improve offsite wild
plant maintenance is to expand NPGS to include nonagricultural varieties. The objective
is to take advantage of existing Federal, State,
and private cooperation. Crop advisory committees could be established for species that are
important but have little market value. NSSL
could be expanded to serve as a repository for
wild species’ seeds that may have future economic or ecological significance. Existing plant
centers and scientists could play a larger role
in propagation and reintroduction programs
for wild plant species, particularly threatened
or endangered species.
Photo credit L McMahan
Greenhouses of the Berry Botanic Garden, Portland, OR,
Botanic gardens are becoming increasingly important to
diversity.
the effort to
for inclusion into the national program (16).
CPC also has agreements with NSSL for longterm storage of selected wild species (40).
Arboretums and botanic gardens historically
have not considered the maintenance of wild
plant diversity a goal (37). They have generally
provided display gardens—areas where showy
flowers or unique plants are presented–with
a secondary objective of preserving wild plant
species. Interest in maintaining diversity is increasing, however (37,59). In some cases, reproductive individuals of rare plant species may
be found only in arboretums or botanic gardens.
Yet, aquatic plants are underrepresented in botanic institutions, and few aquatic gardens exist to conserve such species.
The underlying responsibilities of NPGS
would need to be changed to accommodate
nonagricultural species. Biological differences
between agricultural and wild species, such as
dormancy and seed production barriers, would
increase the need for research to prepare plans
for storage, germination, and regeneration.
Expanding the role of the system to include
wild plant species could reduce already insufficient funding for existing programs, however.
The Agricultural Research Service budgeted
nearly $16 million (gross) for germplasm work
in 1986, but one report has estimated that by
the 1990s, annual allocations of almost $40 million (1981 dollars) will be needed to support programs (43,60). Adding approximately 20,000
new plant species (perhaps millions of accessions to represent the diversity of each species)
would severely strain an already underfunded
program,
Animal Programs
The United States has no organized program
for maintaining diversity in agricultural animals (6). Federal activities to conserve genetic
Ch. 9—Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States
resources are minimal, and private efforts,
though more substantial, are so disperse that
it is difficult to assess gaps or overlaps.
Neither the Federal Government nor State
governments have programs designed to maintain wild animal diversity offsite, It is minimally
supported by Federal contributions to private
sector programs, but no overall Federal plan
exists and funding is erratic, Thus, the private
sector is currently making the most significant
contributions to maintaining domestic and wild
animal diversity.
Domestic Animals
USDA was authorized to collect, maintain,
and develop animal genetic resources under the
same legislation that provides authority for the
National Plant Germplasm System’s components (Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946).
However, USDA contributions to domestic animals did not evolve along with its agricultural
plant activities.
The department has concentrated on identifying foreign germplasm of potential importance
in U.S. livestock production. Beginning in the
mid-1960s, a substantial number of foreign
breeds were introduced into the United States
(6). The importation of cattle was emphasized,
but several breeds of sheep and swine were also
introduced. Breeds were chosen for their likely
contribution to U.S. agriculture and without
particular attention to the degree of endangerment in their country of origin. Several of these
stocks have since become firmly established
within the United States.
USDA evaluated the breeds and in some cases
(especially for sheep and swine) initiated their
importation. A key group in this effort was the
Beef cattle .-. ..-.., . . . . . .
Dairy cattle . . . . . . . .
Sheep
.
...
...
.
Swine
.,
.
.
...
.
.
Horses
.
.
.
.
a
Within the private sector, breed associations
—loose unions of individuals who produce a
particular livestock breed—have been formed
for common species (e.g., cattle, pigs, sheep,
goats, and horses) to record pedigrees and production of individuals within livestock breeds
available in the United States (see table 9-5).
These groups do not consider maintenance of
biological diversity as a goal, although they may
contribute to maintenance of animal genetic
resources (25,59). A diversity of livestock breeds
will be maintained only if an association exists for each breed.
Most programs that deal with germplasm
conservation as such (i. e., separate from efforts
to use that diversity within the livestock industry) are undertaken and funded by the private
sector, Many minor livestock breeds in the
United States are maintained by one person or
a few individuals, working relatively independently (25,59).
The American Minor Breeds Conservancie
(AMBC), a nonprofit organization, is currently
seeking to identify these people and open lines
of communication among them, (For further
discussion of AMBC and the contributions of
individuals and breed associations to domestic animal genetic diversity, see ref. 59.) AMBC
recently completed a census of North American livestock that identifies some 80 breeds,
including cattle, pigs, sheep, donkeys and
Number of – —- - Number of reg~strationsa
associations
Minimum
Maximum
Average
18
6
8
10
15
297
4,085
4<568
382
631
For fiscal fear 1983
SOURCE National Soc(ety of Ltvestock Record Assoclattons
239
Germplasm Evaluation Program of the Roman
L. Hruska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center
(MARC) in Nebraska, which compared more
than 20 foreign and domestic cattle breeds (61).
Current efforts at MARC deal with development of composite gene-pool stocks for new and
more productive breeds of sheep and swine.
Table 9-5.—Active Breed Associations in the United States
Species
●
1983
195,267
425,385
58,994
245,423
68,346
43,976
89,382
18,675
61,050
22.260
240 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
mules, and goats, needing special attention to
ensure their survival (26).
private companies also make significant contributions to animal germplasm maintenance.
For example, the majority of poultry germplasm
is maintained by firms that operate both domestically and internationally (6). Several maintain
unselected, random-bred control lines that
serve as reservoirs of genetic diversity. These
lines, however, are vulnerable to changes in
economic conditions, and their maintenance
does not currently represent public or industry policy.
Artificial insemination (A. I.) firms control
and distribute the majority of U.S. dairy cattle
germplasm. These companies have formed
pools of individual breeders involved in
planned matings, testing progeny of specific
germplasm strains, and development of improved breeding lines (6). Companies focus
almost entirely on Holstein cattle because the
market is so large. Increased emphases on
planned matings among superior individuals
have been required to maximize genetic improvement within the dairy industry because
of intense competition among A.I. organizations,
As a result, new bulls for use in artificial insemination often represent the offspring of a
small sample of bulls from the previous generation. For example, of the 6 to 7 million dairy
cows bred each year in the United States, about
65 percent are impregnated by only 400 to 500
A.I. sires, In addition, of the approximately
1,000 performance-tested dairy bulls in a given
year, nearly half are sons of the 10 best bulls
of the previous generation (67). This process
tends to maximize rates of genetic improvement
and almost certainly will result in an excessive
narrowing of the genetic base.
Researchers affiliated with universities and
Agricultural Experiment Stations help identify
genetic resources or help maintain and develop
germplasm resources, although not as much as
breed associations or private industries do, For
example, one researcher at the University of
Connecticut has produced an international
registry of poultry genetic stocks that is annu-
ally updated and acts as an important catalog
of existing poultry resources (53). University
animal or veterinary science departments may
maintain small breeding populations of livestock for experimental and educational purposes (26).
U.S. universities with programs for domestic animal research and utilization also play a
role at the international level. The International
Sheep and Goat Institute associated with Utah
State University, for example, works with researchers and livestock operators in other countries to identify and propagate genotypes of
sheep and goats. Although the focus of the institute is to assist countries in the production
of sheep and goats best-suited to local environments, its members are also involved in training international institutions in the storage and
management of sheep and goat genetic resources (29).
Even with these various efforts, the overall
diversity within many domestic animal breeds
is declining (6). In summary:
Storage facilities do not exist for in vitro
maintenance of sheep, swine, or poultry
genetic stocks.
Breed associations report that although a
few breeds of sheep in the United States
have declined to very small numbers, global
diversity of sheep germplasm remains
adequate.
Genetic diversity in dairy and meat goats
does not appear to be changing significantly.
Because relatively few competitive strains
of highly specialized egg and meat chickens,
turkeys, and waterfowl account for much
of the world poultry populations, there is
concern about maintaining adequate genetic diversity for future needs.
The increasing emphasis on whole-milk
production dairy cattle favors the adoption
of Holstein breeds among milk producers,
causing the decline of other minor dairy
breeds,
Genetic diversity appears to be stabilized
or increasing slightly in beef cattle in the
United States.
\Ch. 9—Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States
●
241
Public awareness of the potential problems
associated with loss of genetic diversity and institutional concern about the issue are not as
evident for domestic animal species as they are
for agricultural crop species. Concern about
loss of agricultural animal diversity is increasing, however, at the international level, where
a perception exists that a significant amount
of genetic diversity is disappearing (see ch. 10).
Insufficient information exists on the status and
trends of domestic animal breeds at the global
level to substantiate this belief (19), But it is the
unregistered and unrecognized breeds that are
in the greatest danger of becoming extinct.
In one case, zoos are working together to
maintain viable populations of wild animals
bred in captivity. The American Association
of Zoological Parks and Aquariums coordinates
breeding programs for selected endangered
wild species. These programs, known as Species Survival Plans (SSPS), are being implemented for some 30 species that are critically
endangered in the wild, that have sufficient
numbers at various zoos to ensure genetic viability within a captive breeding program, and
that have a sufficient nucleus of professionals
at the cooperating institutions to carry out the
plan (l). (For a discussion of captive breeding
techniques, see ch, 6.)
Wild Animals
Breeding programs are designed by experts
with knowledge of the species and carried out
by scientists within the zoological community
(l). Since more animal species meet the SSP
criteria than zoos realistically have resources
to implement, further criteria exist for determining which species to include:
Federal efforts to maintain wild animals offsite occur only through the captive breeding
programs of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Individual specimens of critically endangered species may be selected for captive breeding programs at the Patuxent Wildlife Research
Center in Patuxent, MD. The center has been
responsible for the captive breeding and reintroduction of more than 60 species of birds,
mammals, and reptiles native to the United
States (37).
Endangered fish species have been propagated at the Fish and Wildlife Service’s National
Fish Hatchery in Dexter, NH, Additionally,
FWS provides nominal funding for captive
breeding and reintroduction programs for endangered animal species to the private sector,
and in one case, to the State of Wyoming to recover the black-footed ferret. Overall, however,
programs for the offsite maintenance of diversit y in wild animals are controlled and financed
primarily by universities and institutions in the
private sector (37).
zoos are well-known storehouses for wild animal species, although historically they made
few contributions to maintaining biological
diversity. But their role in this area is becoming significant, especially in terms of public
education. More institutions are identifying the
need for expanded activity in research and technology development to maintain genetic diversit}r of zoo animals.
1, a high probability’ of successful implementation of the plan,
2. a high relative degree of endangerment,
and
3, a high relative degree of uniqueness within
the animal kingdom.
Species Survival Plans are designed to overcome the space and population limitations of
most zoos. For many institutions, adequate facilities to maintain a viable breeding population of at least 250 animals simply do not exist.
The SSP outlines agreements between participants in the program for the translocation of
breeding adults or their reproductive products
(e.g., eggs, sperm, or embryos) among zoos to
simulate a much larger breeding population
than could exist at and one facility, Information on the breeding programs must be carefully recorded and entered into a master database, the International Species inventory
System (ISIS). These programs are too new to
assess their effectiveness in maintaining genetic
diversity.
ISIS was developed at the Minnesota Zoo to
catalog information about the genetic makeup
of individual animals from more than 200 zoo-
242 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
logical institutions worldwide. One goal in the
database development was to address the problem of inbreeding among species within zoos.
ISIS acts as a computerized matching service,
helping zoos around the world identify other
institutions that have distinct bloodlines in
breeding populations of a particular wild animal (14), Other goals include identifying captive management problems, monitoring the captive status of some 2,500 species, and providing
information to managers. It appears that ISIS
is widely used by zoological institutions and
therefore makes important contributions to
maintaining genetic diversity.
A large number of zoos are not involved with
the SSP or ISIS, yet still provide offsite maintenance of selected wild animal species. These
institutions may support populations of locally
endemic wild animals or include individuals
of internationally rare species. Maintenance of
a diversity of species or of individuals within
a species is generally not an objective at these
institutions, however.
Much of the work undertaken by zoos to preserve species involves internationally endangered ones, with less attention given to threatened and endangered species found in the
United States. The focus on species from elsewhere in the world or exotic animals is due,
in part, to the degree of endangerment of these
animals. Those that are critically endangered
in the United States, such as the California condor or the black-footed ferret, are also the focus of active captive breeding programs at U.S.
zoos (8,36). Compared with zoos, most aquariums accord the maintenance of aquatic species diversity a low priority. Almost no work
has been done at U.S. aquariums to maintain
the diversity of species found in U.S. waters
(38). When they need specimens, they generally collect them from the wild (37).
Fairly large collections of breeding wild animals are maintained by individuals, In many
cases, these people establish societies around
a particular species or group of species to exchange information and breeding stock among
society members. Their efforts range from the
small-scale activities of individuals that breed
exotic birds or reptiles to the management of
large herds of Asian and African antelope species by Texas game ranchers. (For further discussion, see ref. 59.)
Microbial Resource Programs
No U.S. institution or institutional mechanism addresses the preservation of microbial
diversity. Numerous collections of microorganisms exist in the United States in both the
public and private sectors. Most were established to study a particular taxonomic group
of micro-organisms, and they represent detailed
sampling within that group. Several hundred
specialized working collections of microbial
germplasm are part of the basic and applied
research programs of scientists working in both
the public and private sectors (7).
The largest public microbial culture collection in the United States is the Northern Regional Research Laboratory (NRRL) collection
held by USDA’s Agricultural Research Service. It is an archival collection with a taxonomically broad range of micro-organisms stored
for long-term preservation, NRRL does not publish a catalog of its holdings and does not encourage general distribution of the germplasm
it holds, in part because of the high cost of
distribution. No moderately sized collections
(3,000 to 10,000 accessions) of micro-organisms
function as national repositories or resource
collections for a range of microbial classes (24).
Several collections supported by the U.S. Government are devoted to assembling microbial
strains within a particular taxonomic group.
The largest of these is held by the Neisseria
Reference Laboratory of the U.S. Public Health
Service. Similar taxonomically specific collections supported by USDA, such as the cereal
rust collections at the Universities of Minnesota
and Kansas, distribute microbial germplasm on
request, but they generally do not catalog their
holdings (24).
Like many scientific institutions, organizations holding culture collections are currently
Ch, 9—Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States s 243
suffering from financial cutbacks (24). Funding from USDA has been reduced or redirected
to other areas at the expense of the network
of archival collections (table 9-6). The result is
a diminished capacity to maintain the recordkeeping, authentication, and taxonomic characterization necessary for a collection. Expansion
of existing collections is restricted by such financial constraints.
State Collections
No organized State efforts to collect and
maintain microbial diversity, apart from specialized collections, seem to exist. The many
specialized collections that exist at State universities and colleges are typically the responsibility of individual scientists. Some have gained
institutional support and achieved national significance. Pennsylvania State University supports the major U.S. collection of Fusarium species, a plant fungus of major interest to breeders
(7). Such efforts commonly depend on the continued interests and abilities of individuals who
initiated them.
Unless sources of support and personnel are
available, institutional commitments to microbial collections, where they exist, may not continue after key individuals leave, retire, or die—
a problem noted earlier with regard to agricultural plant germplasm collections, When the
curator of an extensive collection of Rhizobium
germplasm died in 1975, his university was unable to provide future management for the extensive collection—at that time considered the
richest collection in the world of soil bacteria
in this group (24), It would have been lost had
it not been acquired by the University of Hawaii as part of a U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) research project in 1976.
It was not until 1981 that the university agreed
to accept responsibility to maintain the collection in perpetuity as part of an international
Table 9-6.—Microbial Culture Collections in the United States
With More Than 1,000 Accessions
Collection
Sponsor
Number of
cu It u res
Living re;ource:
27,630
American type culture collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Private
(Rockville, MD)
Reference and archival:
63,000
Northern Regional Research Center. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Government
(Peoria, IL)
1,200
USDA Rhizobium Culture Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Government
(Beltsville, MD)
1,700
Neisseria Repository, School of Public Health . . . . . . . . . . . Government
(Berkeley, CA)
30,000
Neisseria Reference Laboratory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Government
(Seattle, WA)
NiFTAL Rhizobium Germplasm Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Government and 2,000
(Paia, Hi)
university
2,000
Plasmid Reference Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Government and
u n iversity
(Stanford, CA)
Education and research:
Fungal Genetics Stock Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Government
(Arcata, CA)
L.L. Collection Waksman Institute of Microbiology. . . . . . . .
University
(Piscataway, NJ)
Industry:
Microbial and Fermentation Products Research . . . . . . . . . . . Industry
(Indianapolis, IN)
Upjohn Culture Collection . . . . . . . . ... ... ... . . . . . Industry
(Kalamazoo, Ml)
SOURCE V F McGowen and V B D Skerman, World Drec(ory of Co//ect/ons of Cu/;ures of A4/;roorganwms
Ila World Data Center, 1982)
7,755
3,070
66,060
7,755
(Brisbane Austra.
244 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
agreement designating them as an international
Microbiological Resource Center, under the
auspices of UNESCO and the United Nations
Environment Programme / International Cell
Research Organization Panel on Microbiology
(see ch. 10). Such an agreement would not have
been possible if the University of Hawaii had
not obtained USAID funding.
Private Collections
The best microbial resource reference collection in the United States is maintained by the
American Type Culture Collection (ATCC).
ATCC is a national nonprofit repository for
medical, industrial, and agricultural microbial
germplasm, as well as a national and international repository for patented microbes. Its collection of approximately 36,000 strains includes
bacteria, fungi, clamydiae, rickettsiae, protozoans, algae, cell lines, and viruses. Although
its holdings are smaller and it charges for each
culture sent, actual distributions from ATCC
far exceed those of the government-sponsored
NRRL (24). Of the U.S. collections of more than
30,000 accessions, only ATCC distributes a
catalog.
Many collections are also held for specific
purposes by U.S. corporations or universities.
These are usually personal collections of individual scientists and may receive little or no
direct financial support. Private specialized
microbial collections, like their counterparts
in universities, usually begin as personal collections accumulated and maintained over a
career. Although typically holding a limited
number of microbial genera, they are unequaled
for taxonomic detail and are an important facet
of the total microbial diversity conservation
effort.
The Frankia culture collection, for example,
held at the Battelle-Kettering Laboratory in Yellow Springs, OH, began as a personal commitment by one scientist to isolate and culture
frankiae, the symbiotic actinomycetes of some
nitrogen-fixing plants (24). This internationally
respected collection is not supported by an institutional commitment or extramural funding
and thus depends on the dedication and re-
sourcefulness of its curator. When a curator
leaves a company, or when business considerations force redirection of that person’s efforts,
a specialized collection like this can be lost.
The costs of maintaining a collection pose
significant constraints for commercial collections, In fact, recordkeeping and distribution
expenses are important factors in many corporate decisions not to make materials from
their collections generally available (24). Specialized collections are vulnerable to deterioration if funding cannot be obtained for their
upkeep. For commercial collections such as
ATCC, cultures must be maintained on a no1 0SS basis. Accessions that are not requested
or used frequently and have no current intrinsic value may be discarded.
Quarantine
Maintaining biological diversity frequently
involves the importation of foreign materials
to increase the available genetic base for crop
and livestock species or for offsite maintenance
in zoos, botanic gardens, or arboretums. Quarantine regulations are designed to prevent accidental introduction by imports of exotic pests
and diseases that could be harmful to U.S. agriculture, For both plants and animals, quarantine procedures are a combination of regulatory requirements controlling importation and
distribution of germplasm and inspection or
testing procedures designed to detect pests and
diseases (for specific testing methods, see chs.
6 and 7). Regulations, administered by the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS) of USDA, have been viewed by some
as restrictive with regard to importation of new
genetic diversity (34,45).
Quarantine regulations classify both plant
and animal germplasm ranging from materials considered to be of low risk of carrying disease organisms to those prohibited entry due
to the extreme hazard they pose of introducing disease. Rice is prohibited from all countries and sorghum from many countries—
except for germplasm that may enter under a
USDA permit specifying the safeguard conditions, which often result in extensive delays.
—
—
.— —
—
Ch. 9—Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States c 245
Likewise, limited numbers of cloven-footed animals can be imported with heavy restrictions
from areas known to harbor foot-and-mouth disease (41). For most materials, some degree of
restriction is required and the plants or animals
must enter through a designated port of entry
for inspection. Most plants, for example, must
enter the United States through one of 14
APHIS Plant Inspection Stations, where they
are inspected, treated if necessary, and released
within 1 to 3 days (35).
Some materials enter under conditions of
post-entry quarantine, whereby they are inspected at an appropriate facility and released
to the importer under an agreement that regulates their maintenance and release. Such agreements exist for some zoo animals, including
most ungulates, Animals subject to post-entry
quarantine are permanently consigned to the
designated facilities, and only their offspring
can be distributed or moved to other institutions. Plant materials are generally exempt from
restriction if no pests or diseases are detected
during the normal detention period of 2 years
(35),
expensive, and difficult. For example, most bird
species are very difficult to import due to
APHIS concerns over the introduction of Newcastle’s disease, a serious threat to domestic
poultry stocks.
State programs regulating movement of plants
and animals vary and are most stringent for
States with economies based heavily on agricultural crops (e.g., California and Florida). Efforts to prevent the spread of pests and diseases
can include restrictions on the carrying of fruits
and vegetables into a State or requirements for
treatment of potentially infected materials before entry, For importation of germplasm from
outside the country, States cannot place restrictions on materials that are greater than those
imposed by the Federal Government (35).
Biological diversity maintenance has not been
a concern in the establishment of quarantine
regulations. Although such regulations and procedures can be important to protecting agricultural diversity, they also, paradoxically, inhibit the development of new \arieties by
restricting or slowing the flow of new materials into the country.
Importation of wild animal species posing
threats to agricultural livestock can be length},
NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES
A variety of activities in the United States address the maintenance of some aspect of biological diversity. These efforts are carried out
by both government and the private sector. Benefits from maintaining diversity, such as improvements in agriculture and the ecological
processes that support life, accrue to all individuals though they seldom pay for them. The
public nature of these benefits makes it the
major responsibility of the public sector to
maintain.
Private sector activities, nonetheless, complement government efforts in important ways.
Activities of some groups and individuals may
back up national programs. In other cases, private actii’ities maintain diversity in ways that
the public sector does not, cannot, or will not.
A number of private groups supplement the National Plant Germplasm System by maintaining
heirloom and endangered commercial varieties
of vegetables, for example, including many that
are not contained in existing national collections, Private crop breeders have been influential in elevating the issue of genetic diversity
loss to a national concern and have been providing increasing input in public germplasm
maintenance activities. To date, these private
activities have received little recognition, and
minimal effort has been made to encourage and
support private initiatives. Increased cooperation between public and private efforts could
not only strengthen the latter but also improve
maintenance of diversity.
246
Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
The various laws and programs of Federal,
State, and private organizations provide an
elaborate framework on which a concerted biological diversity effort could be built. But because few of these activities cite the maintenance of biological diversity as an explicit
objective, the goal is not considered in a comprehensive or coherent manner. Duplication
of effort, conflicts in goals, and gaps in geographic and taxonomic coverage consequently
exist.
One means of addressing biological diversity
maintenance in a comprehensive way is to develop a national strategy, The process of developing a plan would help pinpoint areas
where activities overlap or are lacking. At the
least, such a process would initiate coordination of Federal agencies’ activities. Those administering programs related to biological
diversity would have to provide detailed reports
on how programs are being implemented to
conserve diversity. In particular, they would
need to identify measures being undertaken to
reduce program overlap, minimize jurisdictional problems, and identify areas for new initiatives. The latter is most evident in the lack
of a national animal genetic resources program
and of a system of protected representative ecosystems in the United States.
Any strategy, no matter how good it appears
on paper, cannot be effectively implemented
without adequate resources. Sustained longterm funding, in turn, requires consistent commitment to the process, The inconsistent funding and staffing of many existing programs
illustrate the complexity and accompanying
uncertainty of the political process.
An examination of trends in Federal budget
allocations for natural resource conservation—
including pollution control, water resources,
public lands, recreation, and soil conservation—reveals a considerable decline over the
last decade. This decline stands in contrast with
real spending increases between 1978 and 1986
for defense (5o percent), payments to individuals—e. g., social security, Medicare, veterans’
benefits, food stamps, and so on–and a tripling
of interest payments on the national debt (51).
The proportion of U.S. Government research
and development (R&D) expenditures devoted
to environmental R&D has also declined in recent years and assumes a smaller proportion
of total government R&D funding compared
with other industrial countries (48),
Programs of particular relevance to biological diversity maintenance, namely the Endangered Species Program and the National Plant
Germplasm System, have been stretched to the
point of being unable to adequately meet their
objectives. These programs are able to prevail,
in light of the constraints, mainly because of
the dedication and ingenuity of the individuals
working in them. The National Plant Germplasm System, for instance, has been underfunded for years. Within 2 years, the National
Seed Storage Laboratory’s storage facilities will
be full, and aging equipment and buildings at
NSSL and other facilities require major repair,
upgrading, or replacement. Similarly, the effectiveness of the Endangered Species Program
in preventing extinctions has been hindered by
a shortage of resources.
CHAPTER 9 REFERENCES
1. American Association of Zoological Parks and
Aquariums, Species Sur\ri\al Pliin (Wheeling,
2.
WV: undated).
Anonymous, “Block Announces Pioneer Grant, ”
fall 1985.
3. Bean, ~M. J., The Evolution of’ A’atiunal Wildlife
Lan~ (New York: Prae,ger Publishers, 1983).
4. Bean, M., “ Federal Laws and Policies Pertain-
5
Ili\rersitLV 7:9-10,
6
ing to the Maintenance of 13iological Diversity
on Federal and Private l,ands, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.
Bonner, F., “Technologies TO Maintain Tree
Germplasm Divers ity, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Animal Germplasm Presert’ation and [Jti-
Ch. 9—Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States
7.
8.
Iization in Agriculture, Report No. 101 (Ames,
1A: 1984).
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Plant Gcrmplasm Prescr\ration and Utilization in U.S. Agriculture, Report No. 106
(Ames, 1A: 1985).
Crawford, M., “condor Reco~er} Effect 1 lurt
by Strateg}r Debate,’” ,$(;ience 23 1:2 13-214, Jan.
17, 1986.
9. Crumpacker, W.
D., Potentia] Di[rersitJr and ~uJ=
rent Protection Status of hlajor Aratural Eco.~J’stems in the LJnited States: A PrelinlinarJ Report
to the Heritage Conscr\’ation and Recreation
Ser~ice (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
10,
11
12
13
14.
15.
16.
the Interior, Heritage [;onst:ri’at ion anci Recreation Ser\’ice, 1979).
Crumpacker, W. D., ‘‘Stat us and Trends of U.S.
Natural Ecosystems, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.
Crumpacker, W. D., University of Colorado, personal communication, June 1986.
Davis, G. D., “Natural Ditersity for Future Generations: The Role of Wilderness, “ Proceedings
A’atura] DitcrsitJr in Forest Eco.sjstem.s Workshop, J. L. Cooley and J. H. Coole~’ (eds. ) (Athens,
GA: Uni\rersity of Georgia, 1984). Zn: Crumpacker, 1985.
13rabelle, D., “The Endangered Species Program, ” Audubon 11’i]d]ifc Report, 1985 (Netv
York: h’ational Audubon Society, 1985).
Dresser, B., and I,eibo, S., “Te(:hnologies To
Maintain Animal Germplasm, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1986.
Dunstan, F., assistant director, Sanctuarjr Program, National Audubon Societj, personal communication, May 18, 1984.
Falk, D., and Walker, K., “Networking To Save
Imperiled Plants, ” Garden, January-February
Greeter, S., South Carolina State Heritage Trust,
personal communication, Apr. 7. 1985.
22. Gregg, W. P., and Fretz, P. R., “Biosphere Reserves: A Background Paper for the Task Force
on Conserving Gene Pools, ” unpublished U.S.
National Park Ser\ice report, 1986.
23. Gulick, P., and \an Sloten, D. H., Directory of
Germplasm Collections: Tropical and Subtropic] Fruits and Tree IVuts (Rome: International
Board for Plant Genetic Resources, 1984).
Halliday, J,, and Baker, D., “Technologies To
Maintain Microbial Di\ersit~,” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.
25, Henson, E., “An Assessment of the Conservation of Animal Genetic Di\rersit}’ at the Grassroots Level, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.
26. Henson, E., 198.5 North American Litestock
Census (Pittsboro, NC: American Minor Breeds
Conservancy, 1985).
27, Hougas, R. W., “Plant Germplasrn Policy, ” Plant
24,
Genetic Resources: A Conser~ration Imperative,
28
29.
30.
31.
Fernald, E. A., et al., Guidelines for identification, Evaluation, and Selection of Biosphere Reserves in the LJnited States, OES/ENR, U.S. Man
and the Biosphere Report No. 1 (Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of State, 1983). In: Crumpacker, 1985.
18. Fitzgerald, J., and Meese, G. M., Saving Endangered Species (Washington, DC: Defenders of
Wildlife, 1986).
19. Fitzhugh, H., Getz, W., and Baker, F., “Status
and Trends of Domesticated Animals, ” OTA
commissioned paper, 1985.
20. Fom]er, C,, *’Report on Grassroots Genetic Conservation Efforts, ’ OTA commissioned paper,
1985.
247
21.
1986, Pp. 2-6.
17.
●
32.
33.
34
C.W. Yeatman, D. Kafton, and G. Wilkes (eds.),
AAAS Selected Symposium 87:15-30 (Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1984).
Hyland, H. L., “Histor~’ of Plant Introduction in
the United States, ” C.W. Yeatman, D. Kafton,
and G. Wilkes (eds. ), AAAS Selected Symposium
87: 5-14 (Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1984).
International Sheep and Goat Institute, untitled pamphlet (Logan: Utah State University,
undated).
Jenkins, R,, science director, The Nature Conservancy’s State Natural Conservancy Program,
personal communication, Feb. 6, 1987.
Jones, B., Office of Endangered Species, Fish
and Wildlife Ser\’ice, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC, personal communications, August 1986.
Jordan, W., Peters, R., and Allen, E., “Ecological Restoration as a Strategy for Conserving B iodiversity, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1986.
Kafton, D., “The California Gene Resource Conservation Program, ” C.W. Yeatman, D. Kafton,
and G. Wilkes (eds. ) AAAS Selected Symposium
87:55-62 (Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1984).
Kahn, R, P,, “Plant Quarantine: Principles, Methodology, and Suggested Approaches, ” P~ant
Health and Quarantine in International Transfer of Plant Genetic Resources, W .B. Hewitt and
L. Chiarappa (eds.) (Cleveland, OH: CRC Press,
1977).
248 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
35,
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
Kahn, R. P., “Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity: Assessment of Plant Quarantine
Practices, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.
Kline, L., Office of Endangered Species, Fish
and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, personal communication, 1986.
Lucas, G., and Oldfield, S,, “Living Collections
(Plants and Animals),” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.
Lynch, M. P., and Ray, C., “Preserving the Diversity of Marine and Coastal Ecosystems, ” OTA
commissioned paper, 1985.
Matia, W, T., director of stewardship, “Public
Information Flyer on Stewardship Program, ”
The Nature Conservancy, 1986.
McMahan, L., “Participating Gardens Vital to
Center’s Work, ” The Center for Plant Conservation 1:1, summer 1986.
Moulton, W. M., “Constraints to International
Exchange of Animal Germplasm, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985,
Murphy, C., National Germplasm Program Coordinator (acting), Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, personal
communication, Dec. 16, 1985,
Murphy, C., National Program Staff, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, personal communication, Aug. 11,
1986.
Nabhan, G., and Dahl, K., “Role of Grassroots
Activities in the Maintenance of Biological Diversity: Living Plants Collection of North American Genetic Resources, ” OTA commissioned
paper, 1985,
National Plant Genetic Resources Board, Minutes of the Meeting of the National Plant Genetic
Resources Board, Washington, DC, May 14-15,
1986.
The Nature Conservancy, Preserving Our Natural Heritage (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977).
Norse, E. A., “Grassroots Groups Concerned
With Zn-Situ Preservation of Biological Diversity in the United States, ” OTA commissioned
paper, 1985.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development, The State of the Environment
1985 (Paris: 1985).
Qualset, C., Agriculture Department, University
of California at Davis, personal communication,
1986.
Salwasser, H,, Thomas, J. W., and Samson, F,,
“Applying the Diversity Concept to National
F o r e s t Mana~ement. ” In: I.L, Coolev, 1.H.
Cooley (eds), Naturaj Diversity in Forest EcosJ’sten]s: Proceedings of the Workshop, N OV. 29-
Dec. 1, 1982, Institute of Ecology, Athens, GA,
1984.
51, Sampson, N., “Natural Resources Get the Axe, ”
American Forests 92:10-1 1, 58-59, 1986.
52, Sharp, C., National Plant Materials Specialist,
Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, personal communications, Jan. 7,
1986.
53, Somes, R. G., Jr., International Registry of Poultr~ Genetic Stocks, Bulletin 469, Storrs Agricultural Experiment Station (Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, 1984). In: Henson (OTA
commissioned paper), 1985.
54. Spinks, J., Office of Endangered Species, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of
the Interior, personal communication, January
1986.
55. Stone, P., 1985-1986 National Directory of Local and Regional Land Conservation Organizations (Bar Harbor, ME: Land Trust Exchange,
1985),
56 U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, Better Collection and Maintenance Procedures
Needed To Help Protect Agriculture’s Germplasm Resources (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981),
57. U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office,
Comptroller General, The Department of Agriculture Can Minimize the Risk of Potential Crop
Failures (Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1981).
58. U.S. Congress, National Seed Protection Act of
1985, H,R, 3973, Dec. 17, 1985.
59. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Grassroots Conservation of Biological
Diversity in the United States—Background Paper #l, OTA-BP-F-38 (Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office, March 1986).
60, U.S. Department of Agriculture, “The National
Plant Germplasm System—Current Status,
Strengths and Weaknesses, Long-Range Plans”
(Washington, DC: 1981).
61, U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Germplasm
Evaluation Program, ” Progress Report No. 11,
USDA/ARS-1, 1984.
62. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980 National Survey of Fishing,
Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation
(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982).
63. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Refuge Management,
Ch. 9—Maintaining Biological Diversity in the United States
“Preliminary Sur~ey of Contaminant Issues of
Concern on National Wildlife Refuges, ” (Washington, DC: 1986).
6 4 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park
Service, Office of Science and Technology, State
of the Parks 1980: A Report to the Congress
●
249
search Scrv ice, “.Mandates To Federal Agencies
To Conduct Biological Inventories,” OTA commiss ioned paper, 1985.
66. Williamson, 1,.1,. (cd.), *’Senate Approves Farm
Bill, ” out[ioor ,\’CItrS Bu]]etin 39(29):1, No\. 29,
1985.
[Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Of- 67. }’oung, C. W., “Inbreeding and the Gene Pool, ”
fice, 1980).
[ourna] of llairjr Science 67:472-477, 1984.
6 5 U.S. I.ibrary of Congress, Congressional Re-
Chapter 10
Maintaining Biological
CONTENTS
Page
Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................,.253
Overview .***** *****.. .8.***** *..**** ****,*, ..**,*** ..****** ,,* 253
International Law .**,.. .*.***** *******. *..**.* .**.** .. !. ........254
International Laws Relating to Onsite Maintenance . ..................255
International Laws Relating to Offsite Maintenance . ..................259
International Programs and Networks .,. . .............................262
Onsite Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................264
Offsite programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................269
Needs and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . **.**. ....*.* ****,** *.*. 275
Onsite Activities ****.. **,***. *,**,*** ***,*.* **..*,* **.**** ,,, 275
Offsite Activities. . . . . ...**** *****.* **.*.** ****,*. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7 7
Integration. . ,..,.,. ******. ...***** .******* .**,*.*. *****,. ..,*,, 278
Chapter l0 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............278
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Tables
Page
TableNo.
10-1. International Treaties and Conventions for Onsite Maintenance. . . . ..258
lo-2. Countries Where National Conservation Strategies
Are Being Developed .,..*.* ,*..*.. .*.**.* ******, ....0.,. * * * 259
10-3. International Agricultura Research Centers Supported bythe
Consultative Group on Internationid Agricultura lResearch . .........270
10-4.International Agricultura Research Centers Designated as
Base Seed Conservation Centers for Particdar Crops . . . . . . . . . . . ....271
●
●
●
●
Figure
Page
Figure No.
10-1. Distribution of Biosphere Reserves Worldwide . ....................265
8 0 X
Page
BoxNo.
10-A. Patent Law And Biological Diversity ****** **...*. ,******* ,...., 261
●
●
Chapter 10
Maintaining Biological Diversity
Internationally
HIGHLIGHTS
Existing international laws and programs to maintain biological diversity are
too disconnected to address the full range of concerns over the loss of biological diversity. As a result, redundancies and gaps exist.
● Concerns over free flow of genetic resources have led to heated political controversy in international fora. However, debates have been largely counterproductive and could benefit from a more informed and less impassioned analysis of the issues.
●
Intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations are making significant
contributions to maintaining biological diversity worldwide. These organizations, however, have different strengths and weaknesses; those of nongovernmental groups are largely the converse of intergovernmental groups.
OVERVIEW
International laws and programs relevant to
maintaining biological diversity have evolved
on an ad hoc basis. Efforts tend to be focused
on particular species or habitat types and undertaken in relative isolation from other conservation and development activities. Consequently,
overall efforts fail to deal comprehensively with
diversity maintenance concerns. Redundancy
and gaps in coverage result, and benefits of interactions between different activities go unrealized.
As a relatively new platform, biological diversity maintenance has yet to achieve prominence
on international agendas. Increasingly, however, international conservation and development organizations, both public and private,
are redefining their activities around the concept of diversity maintenance. What remains
to be accomplished is an overall accounting of
the scope and effectiveness of this increased
activity to determine gaps in the current system and methods to fill them.
Onsite laws and programs have their roots
in early 19th century Europe and a narrow
constituency concerned with the protection of
certain bird species (10). Since World War II,
however, the number of organizations, legal instruments, and scope of activities in the international arena has increased dramatically.
There has also been a shift in focus from protecting particular species to recognizing the importance of habitat in species maintenance. Programs for maintaining genetic resources offsite
are barely a decade old, and increased attention has led to efforts to define national obligations to maintain and provide access to genetic
resources. Growing realization of the threats
to diversity has also focused attention on the
importance of cooperation between onsite and
offsite programs. Efforts to control trade in endangered species on an international scale and
253
254
●
Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
—
—
initiatives to link conservation activities of zoos
and botanic gardens with onsite conservation
programs highlight these potentials.
The diversity of international institutions and
programs dealing with conservation defies
complete enumeration or simple categorization. In general, however, their principal functions encompass one or more of the following:
problem identification, monitoring and evaluation, data gathering, risk estimation and impact assessment, information exchange and dissemination, national and international program
coordination, standard setting and rulemaking,
.
standards and rules supervision, and operational activities (62).
This chapter outlines the major international
laws and programs with particular bearing on
maintaining biological diversity. International
laws are described by the breadth of diversity
they cover, ranging from global conventions
on ecosystems to treaties concerned with particular species. International conservation programs and institutional networks are also highlighted. Onsite and offsite program activities
are addressed separately because of the distinctness of their operations.
INTERNATIONAL LAW
Public international law governs relations between countries, compared with private international law, which governs relations between
individuals, Public international law provides
a variety of direct and indirect tools for maintaining onsite biological diversity. Most are part
of broader conservation objectives, commonly
focused on protection of single species, groups
of species, or habitats.
The instruments of international law dealing
with conservation have varying levels of binding obligation. The terms “hard” and “soft” law
are used to distinguish levels of legal significance (52). “Hard” law refers to binding obligations reflected either in treaties or customary international law. “Soft” law refers to
instruments that have little legally binding force
but may carry persuasive influence and policy
guidance for state conduct (e.g., international
declarations and resolutions from international
conferences or intergovernmental organizations).
The effectiveness of international law depends on the support, implementation, and enforcement at the national level. The uneven distribution of diversity creates major complexities
in promulgating binding international law in
this area. The difficulty is compounded because
regions with the greatest diversity are often
those with the most limited financial and technical capacities to devote to these efforts.
In international law, a state has authority over
all natural resources within its territory. When
a state ratifies a treaty, however, it voluntarily
restricts some of its rights and assumes certain
obligations. The early development of international conservation law was inspired by interests in protecting Iarge game mammals and
birds. Less attention has been paid to onsite conservation of wild plants, unless they are indirectly protected by international traffic controls to protect commercial and agricultural
plants from pests or pathogens, An exception
is the convention to control trade in endangered
wild species of fauna and flora (discussed later
in this chapter).
The extensive array of international laws that
deal with various aspects of biological diversity maintenance should not be interpreted as
evidence that concerns for diversity loss have
been adequately addressed. As noted previously, many laws deal with specific species or
habitat types. Comprehensive coverage is lacking. Further, it is important to consider the degree of obligation (e.g., hard v. soft law) and
effectiveness of legal instruments (e. g., existence or adequacy of a secretariat or other operational support).
The following discussion of international law
examines onsite and offsite maintenance, the
former being the focus of the majority of legal
instruments. The onsite discussion examines
Ch. 10—Maintaining Biological Divers[ty Internationally
various hard-law treaties and several soft-law
documents. Although international laws related
to off site maintenance are scant, several softlaw agreements exist. Relevant hard-law agreements deal with tangential issues of international patenting and quarantine,
International Laws Relating to
Onsite Maintenance
The existence of an internationally recognized and established obligation to conservation can be of substantial importance to maintaining biological diversity onsite at national
and international levels, Increasingly, international obligations are providing national conservation authorities with the extra justification
needed to strengthen their own conservation
programs. Particularly because of this growing role, international conservation conventions and soft-law documents are important
legal and policy tools to be used with other technical, administrative, and financial measures.
Global and regional treaties are also important tools for long-term conservation, although
many are not effectively implemented. For
some treaties, lack of institutional machinery,
such as a secretariat and a budget, is a major
drawback. Many are difficult to enforce because incentives are weak and early signs of
success are hard to identify, making retaliation
difficult if a party chooses to ignore the treaty
or fails in its obligations. Some global conventions have too few non-European parties. Finally, in many developing countries in particular, technical and financial resources for
implementation are scarce (47).
Global Conventions
Of the five conventions discussed here, the
first four are commonly referred to as the “big
four” wildlife conventions and are the most important for protection of flora, fauna, and their
habitats (47). The Law of the Sea Convention
is also included because of its global scope, (For
texts of these international and regional treaties, see ref. 11; for summaries of major environmental treaties, see ref. 73, )
●
255
The Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
[CITES), established in 1973, controls international trade in wild species of plants and animals listed in the convention appendices as endangered or threatened. with 91 countries now
party to it (48), CITES has been called the most
successful international treaty concerned with
wildlife conservation (52).
The convention has been reinforced by U.S.
legislation. U.S. importation of wildlife taken
or exported in violation of another country’s
laws was prohibited by amendments in 1981
(Public Law 97-79) to the Lacey Act of 1900.
This legislation supports other nations’ efforts
to conserve their wildlife resources and the international controls under CITES. It provides
a Powerful tool for wildlife conservation
throughout the world because of the significant
amount of wildlife imported by the United
States.
The Convention on Wetlands of International
Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat
(commonly known as Ramsar, after the town
in Iran where the convention was signed),
passed in 1971, established a wetlands network
and promotes the wise use of all wetlands with
special protection for those on the List of Wetlands of International Importance, As of mid1985, there were 40 contracting parties to the
convention and about 300 wetland sites, covering some 20 million hectares, on the List of
Wetlands of International Importance (47). Once
a site is on the list, the party concerned has a
legal obligation to conserve the site (article 3(1)),
The Convention Concerning the Protection
of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage,
signed in 1972, established a network of protected areas and provides a permanent legal,
administrative, and financial framework for
identification and conservation of areas of outstanding cultural and natural importance. It
organized a world Heritage Committee, a
world Heritage List, a List of World Heritage
in Danger, and a World Heritage Fund to help
achieve convention goals. (The World Heritage
program is discussed later in this chapter.)
256 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
The Convention on the Conservation of
Migratory Species of Wild Animals (commonly
cited as the Bonn Convention), passed in 1979,
provides strict protection for migratory species
in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant part of their range, and encourages
range states to conclude agreements for management of species that would benefit from international cooperation. Fifteen states were
party to the convention as of 1984, and the first
meeting of the parties in October 1985 established machinery for implementing the convention,
Marine conservation also has received increased attention, particularly in the past two
decades, The Convention on the Law of the Sea,
adopted in 1982 at Montego Bay and yet to
come into force, identifies a number of general
obligations relevant to conservation. Article 192
imposes an obligation on states to protect and
preserve the marine environment. Coastal
states are obliged to ensure through proper conservation and management measures that living resources in their exclusive economic zones
are not endangered by exploitation (article
61(2)). Activities outside national jurisdiction
are to be undertaken “in accordance with sound
principles of conservation” (article 15(b)).
Regional Conventions
Other regional treaties have emphasized conservation of habitat through creation of protected areas and other programs. The major
conventions in force are the Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the
Western Hemisphere from 1940; the African
Convention on the Conservation of Nature and
Natural Resources from 1968; the Convention
on the Conservation of European Wildlife and
Natural Habitats from 1979; and the ASEAN
Agreement on the Conservation of Nature and
Natural Resources from 1985. With habitat de-
struction being a principal threat to biological
diversity, treaties that call for protection of flora
and fauna through habitat protection are particularly important and need long-term support.
The Western Hemisphere and African conventions, however, have had difficulties with implementation and enforcement at the national
level, largely due to financial and technical
limitations. The more recently developed Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)
Convention involved regional consultations to
incorporate management and conservation
techniques and therefore elicits greater hopes
for success.
The regional seas programs developed by the
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
in cooperation with other agencies, particularly
the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the
United Nations (FAO) and the International
Meteorological Organization, involve 10 regions encompassing about 120 of the 130 or so
coastal states in the world. (The 10 regions are
the Caribbean, Mediterranean, Persian Gulf,
West and Central Africa, East Africa, East Asia,
Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, South Pacific, SouthEast Pacific, and South-West Atlantic.) The objective is to reduce pollution and conserve biological resources through cooperative management efforts. The legal mechanisms include
action plans and regional conventions. The regional seas conventions include articles on pollution from ships, aircraft, and land-based
sources; pollution monitoring; and scientific
and technological cooperation. Protocols are
authorized in each convention text and address
specific approaches to certain problems. Technical annexes provide standards for regulatory
or cooperative activity.
protocols are also being explored for protection of easily disrupted marine ecosystems and
for habitats of depleted or endangered marine
life through the creation of protected areas. The
Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider
Caribbean Region, signed in Cartagena, Colombia in 1983, is generating government discus-
sion on protected areas and wildlife in this region, Resolutions adopted call for preparation
of draft protocols (19). U.S. technical support
could be a key factor in the ratification and implementation of such protocols (2o).
The Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, passed in 1980,
contains important innovations on the conservation of biotic resources. It obliges parties to
adopt an ecosystem approach to exploitation
Ch, 10—Maintaining Biological Diversity Internationally
of Antarctic resources, thus requiring consideration of impacts on interdependent species
and the marine system as a whole when setting harvest limits. Article I(2) of the convention defines marine living resources to include
all species of living organisms, including birds,
found south of the Antarctic convergence
(where the warm and cold waters of the Antarctic Ocean meet).
Species-Oriented Treaties
A group of species-oriented treaties focus on
controlling exploitation of specific wildlife,
such as polar bears, vicka, northern fur seals,
whales, and Antarctic seals (52). Although these
treaties are concerned primarily with controlling harvesting, attention to specific species
commonly extends to concerns for their habitat, thus potentially serving biological diversity
more broadly, The major species-oriented treaties are listed in table 10-1.
Declarations and Resolutions
The United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, held in Stockholm, Sweden
in 1972, adopted a Declaration on the Human
Environment that remains a key soft-law document on international environmental issues.
The Stockholm Declaration contained 26 principles to guide the international effort to protect the environment, Principle 2 addresses conservation of the Earth’s biological resources:
The natural resources of the earth including
the air, water, land, flora and fauna, and especially representative samples of natural ecosystems must be safeguarded for the benefit of
present and future generations through careful planning or management as appropriate,
Another important soft-law is the World Conservation Strategy (WCS), a comprehensive doc-
ument prepared by the International Union for
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
(IUCN). Advice, cooperation, and financial
assistance for the preparation of WCS were provided by UNEP and the World Wildlife Fund,
with collaboration from FAO and the United
Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO).
●
257
The strategy was launched worldwide in 1980
in some 30 countries. It provides broad policy
guidelines for determining development priorities to secure sustainable use of renewable resources, and it links conservation and development, The world Conservation Strategy has
three principal objectives: 1) maintenance of
essential ecological processes and life-support
systems, 2) preservation of genetic diversity,
and 3) sustainable use of species and ecosystems.
Introductory sections of the WCS define conservation as:
. . . the management of human use of the biosphere so that it may yield the greatest sustainable benefit to present generations while maintaining its potential to meet the needs and
aspirations of future generations (43).
Development is defined as:
. . . the modification of the biosphere and the
application of human, financial, living, and
non-living resources to satisfy human needs
and improve the quality of human life.
As defined and used in the WCS, conservation
and sustainable development are mutually dependent processes.
A key WCS priority is the promotion of national conservation strategies. These conservation planning tools are now completed or in
preparation in 29 countries (see table 10-2),
Their long-term purpose is to integrate conservation and development planning and provide
an important tool for all stages of development.
The World Charter for Nature offers a third
example of soft law that is becoming increasingly influential in development. This document, the result of 7 years of effort by international organizations and the United Nations,
proclaims 24 principles of conservation by
which all human conduct affecting nature is
to be guided and judged. In 1982, the United
Nations General Assembly, by a vote of 111 to
1, adopted the charter sponsored by the Government of Zaire and 35 other nations,
The United States, the only dissenting vote,
objected to the mandatory language contained
in the supposedly nonbinding document (14).
258 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
Table 10-1 .—International Treaties and Conventions for Onsite Maintenance
Title
Convention
Convention
Convention
Convention
Convention
Established U.S. signed
Global conventions
on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat . . . . . ... , ,
Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage . . . . . . . . . . . . .
on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora . . . . . . . . . . . .
on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
on the Law of the Sea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Regional conventions
Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Presentation in the Western Hemisphere . . . . . . . .
African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ASEAN Agreement on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... , .
Convention for the Protection of Mediterranean Seas Against Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kuwait Regional Convention for Cooperation on Protection of Marine Environment and Pollution
Convention for Cooperation in the Protection and Development of the Marine and Coastal
Environment of the West and Central African Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Convention for the Protection of Marine Environment and Coastal Areas of Southeast Pacific . . .
Convention for the Conservation of Red Sea and Gulf of Aden Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Convention for Protection and Development of Marine Resources of the Wider Caribbean
Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Convention for Protection and Development of the Natural Resources and Environment of the
South Pacific Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1971
1972
1973
1979
1982
not signed
1940
1968
1979
1980
1985
1976
1978
1942
NA
NA
1982
NA
NA
NA
1981
1981
1982
NA
NA
1983
1983
1985
pending
1905
1916
1936
1950
1972
NA
1916
1936
NA
NA
1972
1972
1973
NA
1974
NA
1976
1976
1979
NA
1973
1976
1957
1957
1957
1971
1972
1978
1969
1979
NA
NA
1981
NA
1931
1946
1935
1948
pending
1973
1975
Species-oriented treaties
Birds:
Convention for the Protection of Birds Useful to Agriculture (Europe) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds (Canada/U. S. A.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Game Animals (Mexico/U. S. A.) . . . . . . . . . . .
International Convention for the Protection of Birds (Europe). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Benelux Convention on the Hunting and Protection of Birds (Europe) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Birds in Danger of Extinction and Their
Environment (Japan/U. S. A.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Birds Under Threat of Extinction and on
the Means of Protecting Them (U.S.S.R./Japan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Agreement for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Birds in Danger of Extinction and Their
Environment (Japan/Australia) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Convention Concerning the Conservation of Migratory Birds and Their Environment
(U. S. S. R./U. S. A.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Directive of the Council of the European Economic Community on the Conservation of Wild
Birds (EEC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Polar bears
Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Seals
Interim Convention on the Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Agreement on Measures To Regulate Sealing and To Protect Seal Stocks in the Northeastern
Part of the Atlantic Ocean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Agreement on Sealing and the Conservation of Seal Stock in the Northwest Atlantic. . . . . . . . . . .
Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Vicuna:
Convention for the Conservation of Vicufia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Convention on the Conservation and Management of Vicuria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Agreement Between the Bolivian and Argentinean Governments for the Protection and
Conservation of Vicufia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Whale:
Convention for the Regulation of Whaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
International Convention for the Regulation of Whalina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SOURCES Simon Lyster, lnterrrat~onal kViM/lfe Law (Cambrldae, Enaland ” Grotlus Publ!catlons Ltd , 1985); Barbara Lausche, “lnternatlonal Laws and Associated Pro.
grams for /n-Situ Conservation of Wild Species, ” O TA co;mlss!oned paper, 1985, Federal Interagency Global Issues Work Group, U S Goverrrrnerrt /Jart/c/paffon in /nternaf/ona/ Treaties, Agreements, Organizations and Programs, In the F/eIds of Environment, Natural Resources and Popu/af/err, 1984, United
Nations Environment Programme, Reg/ona/ Seas Ach/evernenf and Planned Development of UNEP’S Regional Seas Prograrnrnes and Cornparab/e Programrnes
Sponsored by Other Bed/es, UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies No 1, 1982, and M Wecker, Council on Ocean Law, personal communication 1986
Ch. 10—Maintaining Biological Diversity Internationally
Table 10-2.—Countries Where National Conservation
Strategies Are Being Developed
Australia
Bangladesh
Belize
Botswana
Great Britain
Canada
Costa Rica
Fiji
G u i n e a Bissau
Honduras
Indonesia
Italy
Jordon
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Mauritania
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Panama
Philippines
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Spain
Sri Lanka
St. Lucia
Switzerland
Togo
Uganda
Vanuatu
Venezuela
Zambia
Zimbabwe
SOURCE Mark Halle, deputy director, Conservation for Development Center, international Un!on for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
Gland, Switzerland, personal communication Oct 17, 1986
That is, the document used “shall” rather than
“should,” despite a general recognition that “by
its very nature, the charter could not have any
binding force, nor have a regime of sanctions
attached to it” [83).
The charter includes several principles relevant to biological diversity:
●
●
●
●
The genetic viability on the Earth shall not
be compromised; the population levels of
all life forms, wild and domesticated, must
beat least sufficient for their survival, and
to this end, necessary habitats shall be safeguarded.
The allocation of areas of the Earth to various uses shall be planned, and account
shall be taken of the physical constraints,
the biological productivity and diversity,
and the natural beauty of the areas concerned.
The principles set forth in the present charter shall be reflected in the law and practice of each State, as well as at the international level.
All planning shall include among its essential elements the formulation of strategies
for the conservation of nature, the establishment of inventories of ecosystems, and
assessments of the effects on nature of proposed policies and activities; all of these
elements shall be disclosed to the public
by appropriate means in time to permit effective consultation and participation.
259
Other documents include action plans and
recommendations from international organizations, such as the UNESCO Action Plan for
Biosphere Reserves (discussed later in this
chapter), the IUCN Bali Action Plan and Recommendations (resulting from the 1982 World
National Parks Congress), and IUCN General
Assembly Resolutions. A recently developed
tropical forests action plan (84) has also been
receiving increased recognition by various
countries and intergovernmental and international nongovernmental agencies.
lnternational Laws Relating to
Offsite Maintenance
The scope of international law addressing offsite maintenance of diversity is far more limited
than that for onsite maintenance. Growing international concern over loss of genetic resources and recognition of the increased importance of offsite maintenance in supporting
national and international conservation initiatives have focused attention on this gap in international law (21,47).
To date, attention has been largely focused
on defining national responsibilities with regard to crop germplasm maintenance and exchange between countries. Tangentially related
international legal instruments deal with international patent protection of biological material and processes, as well as international
quarantine as it relates to the flow of plants,
animals, and microbes between countries.
Germplasm Maintenance and Exchange
Issues of offsite germplasm maintenance,
control, and exchange have assumed a prominent, if controversial, position in international
debates in recent years. Declarations of the importance of genetic diversity can be traced to
the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Human
Environment. In addition to the Stockholm
Declaration mentioned earlier, the conference
produced 106 recommendations as tasks and
guidelines that should be adopted by governments and international organizations (76). Rec-
260 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
—
●
ommendation 39 called on governments to agree
to an international program to preserve genetic
resources. This recommendation has been implemented most actively with offsite conservation of cultivated and domesticated materials,
particularly crop germplasm. In fact, the creation of the international plant germplasm system that now exists has been credited, in large
part, to the Stockholm conference (63).
The only other international agreement dealing specifically with offsite maintenance of
germplasm is the FAO International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources. This initiative
to establish, among other things, an international convention dealing with the maintenance
and free flow of plant germplasm has been controversial since its inception in 1981. Although
initiated as a binding convention, for political
expediency it emerged as a nonbinding agreement in 1983, although efforts to make it binding continue (3). As outlined in article 1 of the
resolution (26):
The objective of this undertaking is to ensure
that plant genetic resources of economic and/or
social interest, particularly for agriculture, will
be explored, preserved, evaluated, and made
available for plant breeding and scientific purposes. This undertaking is based on the universally accepted principle that plant genetic
resources are a heritage of mankind and consequently should be available without restriction.
Subscription to the FAO undertaking has
been polarized along industrial and developingcountry lines, with some exceptions on both
sides (68,82). Developing-country charges that
industrialized countries have been capitalizing
on Third World genetic resources without remuneration is central to the debate (53). The
most hotly contested aspect, however, is free
access to private breeders’ germlines. Industrial countries with plant breeders’ rights legislation (discussed later in this chapter), which
include the United States, are unable, if not unwilling, to subscribe to the undertaking without major reservations.
The issues of control and free flow of genetic
resources are likely to be debated further in international fora. A closer examination of the
U.S. position and options is needed. (Further
consideration of this issue is provided in the
following discussion of international offsite
programs.)
International Patent Law
International patent law is tangentially relevant to genetic resource maintenance because
the proprietary status that patenting living organisms provides is central to the debate on
international access to germplasm. Current debate focuses on plant patenting, although it
could well extend to microbial patenting, for
example, in the future. Advances in biotechnology have brought increased attention to
patenting living organisms because of the lucrative possibilities the technology offers and because of the likelihood that these advances will
accelerate trends toward patenting (e.g., through
the ability to establish genetic “signatures” on
human-altered organisms). The ability of legislation to keep pace with rapidly evolving biotechnologies is uncertain and raises serious
questions for policymakers (67). Effects of patenting on genetic diversity in agricultural crops
raise further concerns (see box 1O-A).
The expansion of plant patenting into international law occurred with the establishment
in 1961 of the International Union for the Protection of Nevv Varieties of Plants (I UPOV), consisting of countries party to the international
convention on this issue. The convention itself
does not provide global patent protection. However, the parties to the convention—almost exclusively industrial countries—agreed to enact
plant breeders’ rights (PBR) legislation and to
guarantee citizens the right to obtain protection under their respective national patent systems (6).
The system does not affect the free flow of
germplasm as such. It typically permits protected material to be used for research and
breeding by nations that have obtained the
rights. Further, there is currently no legal obstacle in using the same material in other countries (6).
Critics charge that since the inception of
IUPOV, there has been a concerted effort to
Ch. 10—Maintaining Biological Diversity Internationally
Box 10-A.—Patent Law
And Biological
●
261
Diversity
Patent law essentially entitles inventors to profit from their inventions for a specified period in
return for disclosing the secrets of the invention in the public domain, presumably to allow others
to build on it. Although the patent system has engendered much controversy since it was formalized,
legislation enabling the patenting of living organisms has become one of its most controversial aspects
(8,81).
The U.S. Congress passed the Plant Patent Act of 1930 covering asexually propagated plant species.
Coverage was extended to sexually propagated species with the 1970 Plant Variety Protection Act
(PVPA). With the Supreme Court decision in Diamond v. Chakrabarty in 1980, microbes became patentable products under the basic patent act (Section 101}. A recent decision by the Board of Patent Appeals of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has now extended patentability under Section 101
of the Patent Act to included plant material, a reversal of an earlier decision [4).
European countries have a similar system of plant varietal protection, commonly referred to as
plant breeders’ rights (PBR). In addition to providing patent protection, however, the European system establishes a system of seed control using common catalog requirements to establish legitimate
cultivars that can be grown legally (5,61). The European control system is cited as having greater
detrimental implications for biological diversity, by increasing uniformity and reducing crop genetic
variability, than the basic legislative protection that exists in the United States (9).
Since the emergence of PBR, concerns have been expressed that the proprietary controls it provides
may create undesirable trends in the agricultural economy, including several of consequence to biological diversity. Specifically, concerns exist that such legislation is contributing to a consolidation
in the seed industry, a reduction of sharing of germplasm and information among researchers, and
the loss of genetic diversity.
A review of studies on these linkages (12,49,50,56) reveals different interpretations of their magnitudes, with most analysts agreeing that a strong link is not apparent or at least is difficult to determine. Most pronounced is the degree of consolidation in the seed industry, but separating the specific
impact of PBR from other factors is difficult. Studies do, however, reveal that plant patents tend to
be concentrated among larger companies and for certain types of crops. Some of these companies
have petrochemical interests, which has raised concerns that their research will be directed by efforts
to promote agrochemical sales (e.g., emphasizing development of pesticide-tolerant or fertilizerdependent plant varieties). With regard to the other concerns (reduced exchange of germplasm and
research information, or loss of genetic diversity), evaluation is hampered by a lack of objective measures. The conclusion is that careful monitoring in each of these areas seems warranted (8,9).
Perhaps more important is the finding that plant breeding by public agencies plays a critical role
in countering the potential negative consequences of the patent system by contributing to competition in the seed industry, to the flow of information and germplasm, and to crop diversity (12). This
finding suggests that continued support of national and international (e.g., International Agricultural
Research Centers) plant breeding programs is important for maintaining and enhancing genetic diversity. Their contributions should be considered in the context of concerns that interest in biotechnology has detracted from emphasis on traditional breeding and cultivar development (9).
encourage developing countries to adopt plant
breeders’ rights laws and become members of
the union (56). The trade-offs for a developing
country enacting a plant patent system, however, are different from those for industrial
countries (5). The arguments for adoption are
that it would encourage private breeders to re-
velop varieties suited to conditions in each
country and that private firms would be less
reluctant to export seeds to countries having
such legislation (2,5). Without adopting PBR,
however, a country would still be able to take
advantage of publicly developed varieties, which
constitute the most important source of im-
262 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
—
-.
●
proved seeds for most crops (81). In addition,
developing countries are not restricted from
using seeds protected under IUPOV.
The extent to which private investment would
be encouraged by instituting PBR, given that
markets and infrastructures in many developing countries are weak and thus unattractive
to many private seed companies, is not clear
(5), Concerns also are expressed over the impact that PBR would have on research activities at international agricultural research centers. In the final analysis, whether a country
decides to adopt PBR will depend on how governments perceive their own best interests
given these and other considerations,
Microbes are patentable (at least for specific
process applications) in most industrial nations.
The Treaty on the International Recognition
of Deposit of Micro-organisms for the Purposes
of Patent Protection (known as the Budapest
Treaty), however, supports a degree of internationalization of the microbial patenting system. This treaty, established in 1977, was instituted in part as a means to provide “enabling
disclosure” (as required under patent law) that
permits third parties to understand an invention and presumably build on it. It establishes
an agreement among participants to recognize
deposit of a micro-organism in another country as adequate for patenting purposes. The
Budapest Treaty also sets standards and procedures for such depositories (6). This system
has engendered much less controversy than the
IUPOV system, which may reflect the current
limited concern among developing countries
over microbe patenting, although this may
change in the future (5).
International Quarantine Restrictions
Plant and animal quarantine rules, actions,
or procedures are established by governments
to prevent entry of pests or pathogens in or on
articles imported along pathways created by
humans. Regulated articles include plants, animals, propagative material (e.g., seeds, cuttings,
cultures, sperm, and embryos), commodities,
soil, packing materials, nonagricultural cargo,
and used vehicles and farm equipment, as well
as their containers and means of conveyance.
The legal umbrella under which international
plant quarantine activities are covered is the
International Plant Protection Convention
(IPPC) of 1951 (known as the Rome Convention). The IPPC provided the international
model for the phytosanitary certificate that accompanies certain articles in transit (45) and
proposed creation of inspection services (6),
However, the program seems to have suffered
from lack of funds and attention (13,35). Since
the mid-1970's, FAO has explored the possibility of establishing a special phytosanitary certificate for the international transfer of germplasm (6).
Though no equivalent to IPPC exists for animals, many countries have signed bilateral
agreements on import health requirements of
animals, including the establishment of pro-
tocols. In general, these international treaties
or commissions between governments deal
with the movement of live animals or specific
animal products such as meat or semen. Restrictive requirements for commerce are generally under the jurisdiction of the respective
veterinary services because of hazards related
to disease prevention and control (57).
Policies on international commerce in live
animals have generally been established and
accepted. Research has been considerable and
will likely continue, and relaxation of current
health-related constraints is anticipated. Policies on international shipment of animal semen are still largely based on the health status
of the donors. The technology of embryo transfer is now at the point where research could
facilitate international transfer of animal germplasm (57).
INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS AND NETWORKS
There are so many different organizations involved in international programs to maintain
biological diversity, it is difficult to generalize
about their effectiveness. Nonetheless, the
strengths and weaknesses of two basic categories of organizations—intergovernmental and
Ch. 10—Maintaining Biological Diversity Internationally
263
—
nongovernmental—are evident. Three intergovernmental organizations, all part of the United
Nations, are most prominent:
1, FAO, by virtue of its interest in crops, live-
stock, forestry, and wildlife (the latter primarily in terms of exploitable resources);
2, UNESCO, whose involvement in biological diversity emphasizes a more scientific
and cultural approach (reflected in the Man
in the Biosphere concept, outlined below);
and
3. UNEP, which extends intergovernmental
involvement into more traditional conservation activities (10).
Perhaps the greatest asset of intergovernmental organizations is their ability to elevate issues to international prominence, based largely
on the organizations’ access to top-level authorities. They may also be able to influence national agendas in various ways. Funding to support activities is central to the influence of these
organizations. In recent years, however, the
functions and effectiveness of certain offices
have been questioned, particularly in the case
of UNESCO. Of concern have been the costs
of programs in relation to their accomplishments and the politicization of activities and
rhetoric, reflecting the dominance of a number of developing countries with an anti-Western bias (62). In general, however, there has
been less political volatility and controversy
where scientific activity and personnel are central elements of particular intergovernmental
initiatives. In fact, UNESCO’s most important
program dealing with onsite maintenance of
biological diversity, Man in the Biosphere, has
been singled out for its integrity,
Nongovernmental organizations (NGOS) are
most effective as catalysts of international conservation activities, The early work of institutions such as the International Council for Bird
Preservation (ICBP) and the International Council of Scientific Unions influenced the evolution of international environmental organizations (10). Considerable activity on maintaining
diversity has also resulted from extending national programs to the global arena, a trend that
continues and that supports the maxim “environmentalism breeds globalism” (10).
The strengths and weaknesses of NGOs are
largely the obverse of those of intergovernmental organizations (62). Their major advantage
is the ability to adopt a problem-oriented approach outside a governmental framework,
thus minimizing problems associated with political interests and conflicts. This is not to imply that such activities should ignore the political nature of conservation activities. As one
analyst has noted:
For the conservationist to argue that nature
is apolitical can be a useful strategy. For him
actually to believe this is a recipe for ineffectiveness (10).
Lack of financial resources is the major limiting factor of international NGOs. Yet, limited
funds are likely to be applied in a more flexible
and responsive way than in intergovernmental institutions, and NGOs often benefit from
the voluntarism and enthusiasm characteristic of such groups. However, what is lacking
is the ability to influence national governments
directly. International NGOs must be cautious
to avoid the impression that they are meddling
in the affairs of state or impinging on national
sovereignty.
The emergence of the International Union
for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources marked a departure from the traditional
dichotomy. IUCN is unique not only because
of its emphasis on biological diversity but because of a membership arrangement that combines a number of state and government agencies with an array of national and international
conservation groups and scientific organizations. In a sense, it reflects a hybrid institution.
The linkages IUCN has cultivated with FAO,
UNESCO, and UNEP reinforce its dual nature.
Certain advantages are evident in such an arrangement:
The combination of the two types of organizations provides two approaches to the resolution of problems: the individual scientists working in the non-governmental organization are
able to provide a problem-oriented approach
with an analysis of the studies being undertaken that is independent and has a minimum
of political bias, while the intergovernmental
organization can provide political and finan-
264 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
cial support for programmed and can make
available the time of scientists working in the
national research councils and national institutes (23).
Cooperation between intergovernmental organizations and NGOs has not been without
conflict, however, especially over how to treat
conservation concerns within the context of development, The rapid increase in U.N. membership that occurred in the 1960s, as many developing countries became independent, led to
an increasing emphasis on development issues.
The landmark 1972 U. N.-sponsored Conference
on the Human Environment emphasized the
need to incorporate economic development
concerns in conservation activities. IUCN responded gradually at first but today the integration of conservation and development has
emerged as a central theme of IUCN activity
as reflected in its development of such documents as the World Conservation Strategy and
the emergence of its Conservation for Development Center.
Although IUCN and the affiliated World
Wildlife Fund represent the central international NGOS, a large number of actors are
present in the international conservation arena.
These organizations vary greatly in size, function, constituency, approach, and focus. Although the contributions of these many groups
is acknowledged, the following discussion is necessarily restricted to the largest and most prominent international organizations.
Onsite Programs
Ecosystem and Species Maintenance
Among the array of international programs
dealing with onsite diversity maintenance, several stand out for their breadth of coverage. Under the umbrella of UNESCO are two independent programs involved in protection of specific
sites, partially chosen for and indirectly concerned with protection of biological diversity.
The Man in the Biosphere Program (MAB) supports conservation of sites representing the
Earth’s different ecosystems, based on the Udvardy system described in chapter 5. The World
Heritage Convention mentioned earlier promotes preservation of sites that have outstanding examples of nature.
The Man and the Biosphere Program is an
international scientific cooperative program
supporting research, training, and field investigation. Research focuses on understanding
the structure and function of ecosystems and
the environmental impacts of different types
of human intervention. The program involves
disciplines from the social, biological, and physical sciences; it is supervised by an International Coordination Council and is tied to the
field through national-level scientific MAB
committees.
Launched in 1971, MAB took as one of its
themes the “conservation of natural areas and
the genetic material they contain. ” The concept of biosphere reserve was introduced as a
series of protected areas linked through a global
network that could demonstrate the relationship between conservation and development.
Building this network has formed a focus for
implementing the program through nationalIevel scientific committees. The first biosphere
reserves were designated in 1976. At present,
the network consists of 252 reserves in 66 countries (see figure 10-1) (30).
In view ‘of their joint interests, UNESCO,
FAO, UNEP, and IUCN convened the First International Biosphere Reserve Congress in 1983
to review experiences and lessons and to develop general guidance for future action. One
result of the congress was the preparation of
an Action Plan for Biosphere Reserves, which
has three main thrusts:
1. improving and expanding the biosphere reserves network;
2. developing basic knowledge for conserving ecosystems and biological diversity;
and
. making biosphere reserves more effective
in linking conservation and development,
as envisioned by the World Conservation
Strategy (71).
The biosphere reserve concept is being applied in a number of cases, but evaluation of
Ch. 10—Maintaining Biological Diversify Internationally
●
265
266
Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
success is premature. Full application of the
concept, essentially as a conservation and development tool, presents complex problems
both legally and administratively. The program
has not required special legislation, which
leaves each country to adapt existing laws,
which are often too weak and too segmented
for the kind of integrated multiple-use planning
and conservation required (ranging from core
areas receiving strict protection to buffer zones
in agricultural or other compatible uses).
Moreover, because large areas are involved,
generally with some human settlement, application of such a concept necessarily involves
many levels of government as well as several
technical agencies. Most government administrations tend to be sector-oriented and inexperienced in coordinating jurisdiction and program reponsibilities in such areas as public
health, agriculture, forestry, wildlife conservation, and public works—all of which may be
required for an effective long-term biosphere
reserve program. Special councils or committees of governmental and nongovernmental representatives may need to be formed to play this
coordinating role.
Notwithstanding the program’s practical
problems, the planning and management principles in the biosphere reserves concept reflect
what an international conservation program
needs to endorse—’’conservation as an open
system, ” where areas of undisturbed natural
ecosystems can be surrounded by areas of “synthetic and compatible use, ” and where people
are considered part of the system (71).
A number of more recent developments suggest that the MAB program will become an increasingly important investment opportunity
for biological diversity maintenance. First, the
concept and purpose of biosphere reserves has
been sharpened and clarified to reflect pragmatic lessons learned over the 10 years since
the first biosphere reserve was established (7).
The establishment of the Scientific Advisory
Panel for Biosphere Reserves in 1985 promises
a more informed, consistent, and structured approach to the MAB system. Current directions
also suggest that MAB will continue to stress
the important work in research on human needs
and impacts within its conservation approach
as reflected in its four recently approved research areas (72):
1. ecosystem functioning under different intensities of human impact,
2. management and restoration of resources
affected by humans,
3. human investment and resource use, and
4. human response to environmental stress.
Critical review of the existing system has
prompted greater attention to ensuring that all
three basic elements of biosphere reserves are
incorporated into existing and future reserves.
These basic elements are the following:
1. Conservation Role: conservation of genetic
material and ecosystems.
2. Development Role: association of environment with development.
3. Logistic Role: international network for research and monitoring (7).
Placing greater emphasis on the last two roles,
as opposed to the first role which has been predominant to date, will likely contribute increased
opportunities and benefits to the biosphere reserve system. Finally, the MAB program may
be able to provide important contributions and
cooperation within the most recently launched
international environmental program, the International Geosphere/Biosphere Program, being formulated by the International Council of
Scientific Unions (54).
The United States withdrawal from UNESCO
has had a number of implications for U.S. participation in MAB (59). An evaluation of the
impacts of this withdrawal suggests that, because MAB activities are largely undertaken
as national projects or bilateral arrangements,
the short-term impacts on MAB are not very
significant. Long-term impacts, however, could
seriously compromise the effectiveness and potential of international MAB unless alternatives
can be found to provide U.S. scientific and financial participation (59).
The Convention Concerning the Protection
of the world Cultural and Natural Heritage began in 1975 and at present has 85 member states
Ch. 10—Maintaining Biological Diversify Internationa//y
and 52 natural sites—8 in the United States.
Sites are selected by domestic committees, technically reviewed by IUCN, and then evaluated
and described by the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee. Approved sites are placed on
the World Heritage List.
Site-selection criteria do not specifically mention biological diversity but include areas of ongoing biological evolution, areas of superlative
natural phenomena, and habitats of endangered
species important to science and conservation.
Only exceptional sites are chosen, and the focus is on well-known animals, especially mammals. Sites must have domestic protection in
place before being listed. Most nations select
already protected sites, such as national parks,
rather than new ones. Managers of such sites
may have different priorities than those of the
convention. The impact of becoming a World
Heritage Site on management practices is not
fully known.
In signing the convention, members agree to
protect their properties and those of other nations, Although the language in agreement is
strong, its legal strength has not been established and member governments often ignore
provisions, Members are assigned a fee or voluntarily contribute to a World Heritage Fund.
Resources are used for training, equipment purchases for members with few resources, and
assistance in identifying candidate sites. This
support, though small, can be crucial to identifying and protecting sites especially in less
well-off nations.
The convention’s annual budget averages $1
million, The United States, one of the forces
behind the convention’s founding, normally
contributes at least one-fourth of the budget.
In fiscal years 1977 and from 1979 through
1982, U.S. voluntary contributions averaged
$300,000. No contributions were made the following two years. The United States contribution in fiscal year 1985 was $238,903. In fiscal
year 1986, $250,000 was appropriated (cut to
$239,000 under budget-reduction legislation),
but no money has yet been contributed. Unless
Congress agrees to an Office of Management
and Budget request for recision of the entire
●
267
amount, the contribution will be made, which
means the United States, having contributed
for two consecutive years, can run for a seat
on the World Heritage Committee.
IUCN, is the central nongovernmental organization dealing with onsite diversity maintenance on a global scale, As noted earlier, IUCN
is actually a network of governments, nongovernmental organizations, scientists, and other
conservationists, organized to promote the protection and sustainable use of living resources.
Founded in 1948, IUCN’S membership now includes 57 governments, 123 government agencies, 292 national NGOS, 23 international NGOS,
and 6 affiliates in at least 100 countries. Developing-country representation has become a
more visible component of the network in recent years, although limited active participation by African, Asian, and Latin American
countries remains a problem.
Establishment of IUCN resulted from a desire to open up channels of communication between different countries and to serve as an
umbrella for various organizations and individuals active in international conservation. Early
initiatives focused on research and education
activities, in part reflecting the initial funding
provided through UNESCO. With the establishment of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in 1961
(largely to serve as a fund-raising initiative for
IUCN and ICBP) and of UNEP in 1972 (which
provided contract work for IUCN), the emphasis shifted back to species and habitat conservation. Today, IUCN and WWF have emerged
as central actors in international environmental
policy, with influence in both intergovernmental and national conservation work (10). IUCN
support for national programs includes the following:
●
●
●
provision of aid and technical assistance
to countries and organizations;
development of a series of poIicy aids, particularly in relation to the creation and
management of national parks and other
protected areas, the framing of legislative
instruments, and the making of development policy; and
preparation, on request from governments,
268
Technologies
to
Maintain
Biological
Diversity
of specific policy recommendations pertaining to conservation and development
plans (10).
Several components of IUCN are particularly
relevant to international conservation efforts.
These include the three centers that form part
of the IUCN network—the Conservation for Development Center (Gland, Switzerland), the
Conservation Monitoring Center (Cambridge,
England), and the Environmental Law Center
(Bonn, West Germany). Central to IUCN prominence and legitimacy in international conservation are its six commissions of experts on
threatened species, protected areas, ecology,
environmental planning, environmental policy,
law and administration, and environmental
education.
The Conservation for Development Center
has emerged as one of IUCN’S most successful
components. In particular, its role in assisting
countries in the development of national conservation strategies has received growing support. The growth in the program reflects not
only the importance of integrating conservation and development interests but IUCN’S
growing commitment to following this approach.
The Environmental Law Center has been indexing national and international environmental
legislation since the early 1960s, Some 20,000
titles are now part of the center’s Environmental Law Information System. The center
has recently developed a species law index that
codes protected species of wild fauna to the corresponding national legislation. This index is
computerized, allowing manipulation by species, region, or country, and it is becoming a
valuable databank for program and policy planning by governments and NGOS when used in
conjunction with scientific information about
endangered species, ranges, and protection
needs.
zations are involved in the inventory and monitoring of biological diversity. Most prominent
are the efforts of UNEP, FAO, UNESCO, IUCN,
WWF, and ICBP.
UNEP has an assessment arm, Earthwatch,
whose function has been to acquire, monitor,
and assess global environmental data. At the
heart of Earthwatch is the Global Environment
Monitoring System (GEMS), an international
effort to collect data needed for environmental
management. GEMS current activities are
divided into monitoring renewable natural resources, climates, health, oceans, and longrange transport of pollutants, These activities
are coordinated from the GEMS Programme
Activity Center in Nairobi which, like UNEP,
works mainly through the intermediary of the
specialized agencies of the United Nations—
notably FAO, the International Labour Organization, UNESCO, the World Health Organization, and the World Meteorological Organization
—together with appropriate intergovernmental organizations such as IUCN (15).
To provide access to the databanks, UNEPGEMS has begun a 2-year pilot project to set
up a computerized Global Resource Information Database (GRID) (74), If successful, GRID
may prove to be a powerful tool for international inventory and monitoring, not only of
biological diversity but of other areas too (15),
GRID will provide a centralized data-management service within the U.N. system, designed
to convert environmental data into information
usable by decisionmakers. The main data-processing facility will be in Geneva, Switzerland,
but it will be controlled from UNEP headquarters in Nairobi.
Ecosystem and Species Monitoring
The pilot phase of GRID is to result in an operational system with preliminary results and the
training of some personnel. An initial evaluation could be expected by the end of UNEP’S
1986/87 biennium, A full assessment of the system is unlikely before several more years of
operations (74).
Information on the status and trends in loss
of the world’s fauna and flora is a critical element in defining strategies and priorities, For
this reason, a number of international organi-
Inventory and monitoring activities at the
species level are also undertaken by the Conservation Monitoring Center (CMC), one of several centers operating under the auspices of the
Ch. 10—Maintaining Bio/ogical Diversity Internationa//y
—
IUCN. Its mandate is to analyze and disseminate information on conservation worldwide
and provide services to governments and the
conservation and development communities.
CMC supplies information in the form of books,
specialist publications, and reports. Major output includes Red Data Books on endangered
species, protected-area directories, conservation site directories and reports, threatened
plant and animal lists, U.N. Lists of National
Parks and Equivalent Reserves, preliminary
environmental profiles of individual areas (by
request), comparative tabulations of transactions under CITES, and analyses of wildlife
trade data for individual countries and taxonomic groups (15).
The International Council for Bird Preservation (ICBP) takes responsibility for ornithological aspects of IUCN’S activities and shares the
IUCN database at CMC, ICBP is also in the
process of establishing an oceanic-islands database to identify areas where action is required
for numerous threatened endemic bird species.
The initial target is to collect details about some
160 islands that support endemic species of
birds, especially islands smaller than 20,000
square kilometers (15).
An important supplement to these initiatives
is the growing number of national organizations taking an international perspective in their
data collection efforts. Of particular importance
is The Nature Conservancy International (TNCI),
based in the United States. TNCI has developed
a regional database on distribution of fauna and
flora in the neotropics that is the most comprehensive of its kind and is promoting establishment of country-level conservation data centers
(see ch. 11).
International Network
The emergence of IUCN as a recognized network of conservation specialists has both galvanized international conservation activities
and established conservation programs as scientific initiatives. It also established two major functions of the organization:
1. promoting contacts among institutes and individuals, primarily by acting as a device for
the exchange of information; and
269
2. setting up some kind of procedure whereby
common platforms and goals could be articulated and, ultimately, a measure of influence exerted on public policy (10).
The Ecosystem Conservation Group (ECG),
consisting of FAO, UNEP, UNESCO, and IUCN,
was established in 1975 to advise on planning
and execution of international conservation
activities by the four organizations (75). ECG
has recently begun to take a more active role
in conservation, ECG agreed at its 1 lth General Meeting, held in Rome in February 1984,
to institute an ad hoc Working Group on Onsite Conservation of Plant Genetic Resources
(40). The working group consists of FAO (lead
agency), UNESCO, UNEP, IUCN, and the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources
(IBPGR). The first meeting of the working group
was held at IUCN headquarters in April 1985,
during the 12th General Meeting of ECG. The
charge to the working group was twofold:
1. review ongoing and planned activities in
onsite conservation in light of recommendations of the First Session of the FAO
Commission of Plant Genetic Resources,
UNESCO’s Action Plan for Biosphere Reserves (see earlier discussion), and the
IUCN Bali Action Plan; and
2. identify ways to strengthen action and cooperation in response to these recommendations, with particular attention to improving information flow and promoting
pilot demonstration activities (40).
Six major goals for coordination and action
were recognized at the first meeting of the ECG
working group and activities were identified
within the framework of these goals. This development signifies an important step among
involved organizations to focus their programs
on plant genetic resources within a common
framework, and, as reflected by the addition
of IBPGR, begin to build a mechanism to integrate onsite and offsite efforts.
Offsite Programs
International institutions dealing with offsite
maintenance are most easily considered under
the separate headings of plant, animal, and
microbial genetic resources. The level of exist-
270 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
ing international activity between and within
these categories of organisms varies considerably. Major factors determining the level of attention devoted to offsite maintenance include
economic importance, threat of loss, and ability to maintain viable collections offsite,
Plant
Diversity
International programs and networks are
differentiated by the types of plants they deal
with. By far, the most developed institutions
are those concerned with major agricultural
plants. For the most part, these offsite collections are maintained in association with agricultural research institutions. Concern over loss
of wild species of nonagricultural plants in their
natural habitats has prompted the establishment of an international network of botanic institutions for preserving rare and endangered
species in living collections,
The focus, extent, and effectiveness of international genebank efforts in recent years have
been largely shaped by International Agricultural Research Centers (IARCS) supported by
the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). This organization
was founded in 1971 and consists of donors that
fund a network of centers doing research on
increasing agricultural productivity, primarily
in developing countries (see table 1o-3). Impetus to form the group stemmed from early successes of two institutes (later to become the first
members of the CGIAR system), the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center
(better known by its Spanish acronym CIMMYT), and the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI). Both programs were the outgrowth of research centers supported by the
Rockefeller and Ford Foundations.
Financial obligations soon became too great
for the two U.S. foundations as budget costs
grew with the establishment of two more centers. The desire on the part of several international development institutions, including FAO,
UNEP, and the World Bank, to expand the system into a network of international centers led
to the formation of the CGIAR, supported by
a group of government and international donor
agencies.
—
Table 10-3.—lnternational Agricultural Research
Centers Supported by the Consultative Group
on International Agricultural Research
CIAT
—Centro International de Agricultural Tropical
Cali, Columbia
CIMMYT—Centro International de Mejoramiento
de Maiz y Trigo
Mexico City, Mexico
CIP
—Centro International de la Papa
Lima, Peru
IBPGR —International Board for Plant Genetic Resources
Rome, Italy
ICARDA —International Center for Agricultural Research
in the Dry Areas
Aleppo, Syria
ICRISAT—lnternational Crops Research Institute for the
Semi-Arid Tropics
Hyderabad, India
IFPRI
—International Food Policy Research Institute
Washington, DC, U.S.A.
IITA
—International Institute of Tropical Agriculture
Ibadan, Nigeria
ILCA
—International Livestock Centre for Africa
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
ILRAD —International Laboratory for Research on
Animal Diseases
Nairobi, Kenya
IRRI
—International Rice Research Institute
Manila, Philippines
ISNAR —International Service for National Agricultural
Research
The Hague, Netherlands
WARDA —West Africa Rice Development Association
Monrovia. Liberia
SOURCE” Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, Summary
of lnternat~ortal Agricultural Research Centers” A Study of Achievemerrts and Potentia/ (Washington, DC 1985).
Today, most CGIAR centers have specific
responsibilities in crop varietal development
and germplasm conservation, and in certain
cases serve as international base and active collections for specific crops (see table 1o-4). A
number of IARCs also operate outside the
CGIAR system, including several with responsibilities for germplasm maintenance. This
group includes the International Soybean Program in Urbana, Illinois and the Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center in Shanhua, Taiwan (18),
The most prominent international institution
dealing with offsite conservation of plant genetic diversity is IBPGR. Established in 1974
by CGIAR, it serves as a focal point for governments, foundations, international organizations, and individual researchers with interests
in maintaining genetic diversity of crop spe-
Ch. 10–Maintaining Biological Diversity Internationally . 271
Table 10-4.— International Agricultural Research
Centers Designated as Base Seed Conservation
Centers for Particular Crops
Nature of
collection
Center
Crop
AVRDC
mung bean (Vfgna radlata)
potato
(seed)
...
...
sweet
beans (Phaseo/us): cultivated
global
Asia
species
.
.
cassava (seed) . . . . . . . . . ...
global
global
CIP
potato
ICARDA
barley
.
chickpea
faba
bean
.
global
global
global
global
.
.
global
global
CIAT
ICRISAT
(seed)
...
.
...
.
...
.
.
.
.
(Vicia
faba)
sorghum
.
pearl
mi!let
.
.
...
minor millets (E/eusine,
Panicurn)
.
...
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
Se(aria,
... . . ...
pigeon pea ..., ..., . . . . . . . . .
groundnut
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
chickpea
.
.
.
global
global
global
global
IITA
rice
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
c o w p e a (Vigna unguicu/ata) .
cassava (Manihot escu/enta; seed).
Africa
global
Africa
IRRI
tropical rtce (wild species and
cultivated
varieties)
.
.
.
global
.
SOURCE Consultative Group on international Agricultural Research, Summary
of /nternal/ona/ Agr/cu/fura/ Research Centers A Study of Actr/evernents and Potent~a/ (Washington DC 1985)
cies. IBPGR is a small group; part of the secretariat is provided by FAO Its mission has been
a coordinating one, of setting priorities and creating a network of national programs and regional centers for the conservation of plant
germplasm. It has provided training facilities,
supported research in techniques of plant germplasm conservation, sponsored numerous collection missions, and provided limited financial assistance for conservation facilities (see
ch. 11). It does not operate any germplasm storage facilities itself, however.
As envisioned by IBPGR, collection efforts
were to focus on crop plants, based on priorities set by the board and reflecting the economic
importance of the crop, the quality of existing
collections, and the threat that diversity would
disappear. The collected materials were to be
kept in national programs and duplicated outside the nation in which they were collected.
A global base collection was to be established
for major crops, and there were hopes of creating regional programs,
The achievements of IBPGR are impressive,
measured in its own terms and against the list
of objectives. Ten years after IBPGR was established, the network for base collection storage
included 35 institutions in 28 countries. Regional maize collections exist in Japan, Portugal, Thailand, and the United States, for example, and one in the Soviet Union is under
negotiation. For rice, a global collection has
been established in Japan and the Philippines,
and regional collections are found in Nigeria
and the United States (27). National programs
were created during IBPGR’s first 10 years in
about 50 countries, and by 1986 some 50 base
collection centers had been designated for
about 40 crops of major importance (38,79). The
program has limited itself to a particular group
of plants and has been successful in coordination, in encouragement of national programs,
and in scientific and educational assistance (33).
In all, IBPGR has links with more than 500 institutes in 106 countries (79).
In part, due to the success of IBPGR in focusing attention on the need to conserve genetic
diversity, the issue has become embroiled in
political controversy. IBPGR regards itself as
a technical and scientific organization. But a
number of critics regard the issue of plant
genetic resources as much more politicaI. They
maintain that IBPGR is implicitly working for
the corporate and agribusiness interests of the
industrial world, particularly the United States
(36,56). Critics also argue that the current genetic material exchange system is inadequate
to ensure that material will continue to be available, particularly to developing countries. The
debate has become quite acrimonious, with
proponents of IBPGR emphasizing their scientific and pragmatic approach to the issue, and
critics emphasizing their fear that multinational
corporations will gain control over plant germplasm. Plant patenting and access to plant genetic resources are also important elements in
the current controversy (see earlier section) (6).
This entire controversy helped catalyze a
move toward deeper FAO involvement in the
germplasm area and toward a new international approach (70). FAO argued that it should
be taking the lead in plant genetic conserva-
272 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
IBPGR Network
The International Board for Plant Genetic Resources has had a catalytic effect on efforts to conserve
dwindling plant genetic resources.
tion; it could provide the framework for developing nations to obtain a greater political voice
in the international conservation structure. It
was further argued that IBPGR was not a formal organization, and it would therefore have
only limited legal ability to enforce any commitment to make germplasm available (26). This
legal status argument is questionable, however
(6). IBPGR proponents responded that the
board’s technical emphasis works effectively,
and it is in fact an asset in surmounting political problems and dealing with nations outside
FAO.
The alternative approach that evolved consisted of an undertaking and a new commission. The International undertaking on Plant
Genetic Resources was negotiated within the
framework of the FAO. (The United States and
a number of other developed countries reserved
their positions.) The undertaking was nonbinding, probably to increase participation in such
a controversial area. It called for an interna-
tional germplasm conservation network under
the auspices of the FAO, stated a duty of each
nation to make all plant genetic material—
including advanced breeding material—freely
available, and called for development of a procedure under which a germplasm conservation
center could be placed under the auspices of
FAO. IBPGR was to continue its current work,
but it would be monitored by FAO (6).
The other part of the new FAO system is the
Commission on Plant Genetic Resources, a
group established to meet biannually to review
progress in germplasm conservation. The commission held its first meeting in March 1985,
with the United States present as an observer,
Much of the discussion focused on concerns
expressed in the FAO undertaking and on issues that had regularly been dealt with by
IBPGR, such as base collections, training, and
information systems. In addition, discussions
and resolutions paid significant attention to onsite conservation and emphasized the impor-
Ch. 10—Maintaining Biological Diversity /internationally
tance of this area, which has received little attention from IBPGR.
It is not yet clear whether a practical and cooperative division of responsibilities between
the two entities can be developed. One approach
that has been suggested is to have each entity
assume different responsibilities, such as giving IBPGR responsibility for offsite maintenance and letting FAO focus on onsite genebanks. An alternative would be to have IBPGR
assume responsibility for technical aspects of
germplasm collection and maintenance and
give FAO responsibility for legal and political
factors (28).
Botanic gardens and arboretums are increasingly viewed as important for conservation of
wild plant species. Efforts to establish an international network of botanic gardens for the
purpose of conserving threatened plant species
were formalized in an international conference
at the Royal Botanical Garden at Kew (United
Kingdom) in 1978. IUCN’S Species Survival
Commission set up a Botanical Gardens Conservation Coordinating Body (BGCCB). This
body, established in 1979, is coordinated by the
Threatened Plants Unit of IUCN’S Conservation Monitoring Center and now has 136 members, In addition, the Moscow Botanic Garden
coordinates for BGCCB the response of 116
gardens in the Soviet Union (51). The function
of such a network was reviewed at an IUCN
conference in Las Palmas in 1985. Representatives of the botanic gardens meetings recommended a new conservation secretariat with
IUCN support to coordinate their conservation
activities and the establishment of a Botanic
Garden Conservation Strategy (39).
Representation of developing nations is poor
in BGCCB. The Montevideo Botanic Garden
is the only South American member, for example, Efforts are being made to involve more
developing-country institutions and to encourage twinning arrangements between institutions, whereby expertise in seed maintenance,
curation, and fund raising could be promoted.
Mechanisms to fund such activities, however,
are not well established (39).
●
273
The planning of conservation collections by
collaborating botanic gardens is encouraged by
BGCCB by drawing attention to rare and threatened species that are poorly represented or not
in cultivation at all. This is done through the
provision of reports and an annual computer
printout for each member garden, detailing the
conservation plans IUCN has been provided
by the garden. The printouts allow an analysis
of the garden’s holdings in relation to other
gardens. Members are encouraged to propagate
and distribute species that are represented,
especially if they are endangered or extinct in
the wild. BGCCB also has circulated lists of
threatened plants to its members and stores the
information on holdings in the CMC database
(51),
IUCN has located 3,948 threatened plant species in cultivation by members of BGCCB,
which is at least one-quarter of the known
threatened plants in the CMC computerized
database (78). However, these collections constitute only a tiny proportion of the genetic
range of threatened species, They also represent only a small proportion of the biological
diversity maintained by botanic gardens, which
implies that greater emphasis on cultivation of
rare and threatened species could be undertaken (51). Although it maybe theoretically possible for the botanic gardens of the world to
grow the estimated 25,000 to 40,000 threatened
species of flowering plants, cultivating sufficient populations to maintain diversity is unrealistic. Consequently, protecting a diversity
of wild species will rest on maintaining them
in the wild.
AnimaI Diversity
Just as institutions split offsite maintenance
of plants into agricultural and nonagricultural
species, offsite maintenance of animals is broken down into categories of domesticated and
wild species. The former category has fallen
under international agricultural institutions,
such as FAO or regional institutions, such as
the International Livestock Centre for Africa.
Responsibility for offsite maintenance of wild
species has been almost exclusively assumed
by an international network of zoos.
274 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
Concern over loss of genetic diversity in agricultural animals has been much less pronounced
than that for agricultural plants. Consequently,
no analog to IBPGR currently exists. Growing
concern over the loss of potentially valuable
genetic diversity for livestock, however, has
prompted limited efforts in this area.
ber of larger zoos have concentrated on breeding rare or endangered species, usually birds
and mammals. These efforts have also extended
to the creation of regional and international networks to enhance the effectiveness and collective conservation potential of the zoological
community.
FAO and UNEP launched a pilot project in
1973 to conserve animal genetic resources. Initial efforts focused on developing a preliminary
list of endangered breeds and of those with
economic potential, especially for developing
countries. A 1980 FAO/UNEP Technical Consultation extended this work by defining requirements for creating “supranational infrastructure resources for animal breeding and
genetics” (37). These covered a range of efforts
to develop animal genetic resources. of particular significance were guidelines in the following areas (37):
An International Species Inventory System
(ISIS) was created in 1974 in response to major problems of inbreeding in zoo populations
and in recognition of the fact that, for an increasing number of wild animals, captive populations held the best hope for survival of the
species. Coverage has grown from 55 facilities
to 211 as of 1985. About 65,000 1iving specimens of 2,300 species are included. Information currently comes from facilities in 14 countries, but coverage is best for U.S. and Canadian
institutions (see ch, 9). The system is not restricted to endangered species (25),
databanks for animal genetic resources,
which would also identify endangered
breeds;
genebanks to store semen and embryos of
endangered breeds; and
training of scientists and administrators in
genetic - resources conservation and use,
ISIS publishes biannual survey reports. These
include information on the sex ratio and age
distribution; the proportion of captive-bred; and
the birth, death, and import trends for all mammals and birds held in captivity by the members. The system has also recently begun to incorporate information on holdings of reptiles
and amphibians (25).
●
●
●
Endangered livestock breeds can be maintained either in living collections or through
cryogenic storage of semen or embryos (see ch.
6). Although the former option has proved viable in certain European countries (34), widespread success is unlikely. Thus, cryogenic storage will become increasingly important as
threats to livestock increase. Concern over loss
of livestock diversity is greatest for developing
countries, but creating cryogenic genebanks in
many countries would be very difficult. Thus,
the value of establishing supranational storage
facilities becomes apparent.
International networking for conservation of
living collections of wild animals is largely restricted to the zoological community, although
IUCN’S Species Survival Commission has been
involved in formulating conservation plans that
include captive breeding (51), Zoos have traditionally been established for public education
and entertainment, But in recent years, a num-
The American Association of Zoological
Parks and Aquariums (AAZPA) setup the Species Survival Plan (29) in September 1980,
AAZPA has identified certain species in need
of immediate attention and has established a
committee for each, consisting of a species
coordinator and propagation group. A major
committee function is to provide direction for
maintenance of studbooks.
A studbook is an international register that
lists and records all captive individuals of species that are rare or endangered in the wild.
The concept, initially developed for the selective breeding of domesticated animals, was first
used on a wild species (the European bison) in
1932. Studbooks are now kept for about 40 endangered species and are a valuable tool in international cooperation in captive breeding,
permitting intelligent recommendations to zoos
around the world concerning such things as
Ch. 10—Maintaining Biological Diversity Internationally
optimal pairings, trades, and management (24).
Official studbooks are those recognized and endorsed by IUCN’S Survival Commission and
the International Union of Directors of Zoological Gardens, and they are coordinated by the
editor of the International Zoo Yearbook.
Microbial Diversity
A directory of institutions maintaining microbial culture collections was published in 1972,
under the sponsorship of UNESCO, the World
Health Organization, and the Commonwealth
Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. The directory was revised and updated
in 1982 [55) and remains the primary comprehensive source of information on international
culture collections. In addition, the American
Phytopathological Society convened a panel of
scientists to discuss the importance and future
of microbial culture collections (l). Information from these sources indicates that probably
1,200 to 1,550 collections exist throughout the
world. A brief history of several of the more
important collections is available (64).
In 1985, UNEP, the International Cell Research Organization, and UNESCO recognized
the need for moderately sized culture collections. Each collection as envisioned would have
a special purpose and together they would form
a network of collections around the world (6).
●
275
The establishment of these microbiological resource centers (M IRCENS) began at that time
and the specialized collections are now located
in 15 locations (17): including Brisbane, Australia; Stockholm, Sweden; Bangkok, Thailand;
Nairobi, Kenya; Porto Alegre, Brazil; Guatemala
City, Guatemala; Cairo, Egypt; Paia, Hawaii,
United States; and Dakar, Senegal (32).
MIRCENS were established to develop and
enhance an infrastructure for a world network
of regional and interregional laboratories. This
network provides a base of knowledge in microbiology and biotechnology to support the biotechnology industry in developed and developing countries. Activities of MI RCENS include
collection, maintenance, testing and distribution of Rhizobium, and training of personnel
(46). Training has perhaps been the most important activity towards developing research
capabilities and diffusion of technology, especially in developing countries (16). Though each
MIRCEN works according to its own set of priorities, they share a common goal of working
together to strengthen the network and advance
the knowledge in microbiology and biotechnology. In doing so, MI RCENS provide incentives
to develop and maintain offsite microbial collections in support of national programs. They
also offer a framework that could provide a secure custodial system for national and international microbial resources.
NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES
The United States has historically played an
important leadership role in international conservation initiatives. The establishment of Yellowstone Park in 1872 heralded the international
movement to create national parks worldwide.
The United States also was a central actor in
the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Human
Environment, in the creation of the United Nations Environment Programme, the World Heritage Convention, and numerous other initiatives (see previous sections). In recent years,
U.S. leadership in international conservation
has waned, which is reflected in funding and
personnel support for international programs.
A number of opportunities exist whereby the
United States could reestablish itself as a leading actor in international efforts to promote the
maintenance of biological diversity.
Onsite Activities
A major problem in developing a coherent
strategy to address concerns over loss of biological diversity is the uncertainty that surrounds the issue. Estimates of the scope of species diversity vary by orders of magnitude,
which illustrates obvious impediments to defining and addressing the problem. Further, lim-
276 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
—
ited and unreliable data on the rates and impacts of habitat conversion exacerbate the
problem of refining a strategy and determining the level of resources that should be directed
to address concerns. Clearly, biological diversity in certain regions is acutely threatened and
deserves priority attention. However, attention
is also needed on gaining a better grasp on
defining the scope of diversity and the degree
to which it is threatened.
Many questions remain even as understanding of the magnitude of threats to diversity continues to improve. Critics suggest that a better
grasp of the situation is needed before large
amounts of resources are devoted to the problem (66). It should be noted, however, that funds
currently spent on diversity maintenance are
relatively small and are not likely to increase
dramatically. More important perhaps is the
realization that funding, both public and private, continues to be directed to well-defined
threats. That is, the situation as it currently exists is essentially reactionary—responding to
acute threats that have already materialized.
Recognition of the importance of biological
diversity has yet to assume the prominence that
would make most national governments take
systematic and preemptive approaches to threatened diversity, which in the long run might
prove less costly. Increased attention and recognition of national and regional conservation
strategies as important elements of integrated
development planning may represent movement to adopt this approach.
Considerable discussion among international
conservation organizations has been directed
toward the need to develop an international network of protected areas that would include representative and unique ecosystems. To date,
however, organizing, implementing, and supporting such a system remains difficult. Efforts
to establish such a system have not suffered
from lack of creativity, as reflected in two largescale proposals: one to create a major international program to finance the preservation of
10 percent of the remaining tropical forests (65)
and another to establish a world conservation
bank (69).
It maybe possible to establish an international
network of protected areas within the framework
of existing programs, specifically UNESCO’s
Man in the Biosphere and World Heritage programs. To do so, however, would require adopting a more organized and strategic policy, further invigorating both programs, and providing
increased resources. This would require a more
concerted effort on the part of national governments, intergovernmental agencies, and the
participation of specific international nongovernmental groups (especially IUCN).
Two other issues are prominent with respect
to the effectiveness of international laws and
programs (47). First, there is debate over the
value of a global treaty to fill what some perceive as a serious gap in hard law. Second, alternatives to conventional protected areas need
to be considered to provide protection beyond
such areas or at sites where the conventional
approach is not feasible.
The notion of a world treaty to conserve
genetic resources of wild species was proposed
at the IUCN World National Parks Congress
in 1982. A similar recommendation by the
World Resources Institute was proposed for the
U.S. Government to develop an international
convention. However, one key question that
needs to be addressed before implementation
is whether a new global treaty could be adopted
and enforced in time to address the problem.
In addition, consideration must be given to financial and technical resources still needed for
treaties that currently play a role in resource
conservation.
Existing treaties have been difficult to implement because of a lack of administrative
machinery (e. g., well-funded and staffed secretariats); lack of financial support for on-theground programs (e.g., equipment, training, and
staff); and lack of reciprocal obligations that
serve as incentives to comply (21), A possible
exception is CITES, which has mechanisms to
facilitate reciprocal trade controls and a technical secretariat, although inadequately funded.
Creating protected areas is the conventional
approach in most international conservation
Ch. 10—Maintaining Biological Diversity Internationally w 277
programs. The modern interpretation of protected areas includes the full range of conservation uses, from strict protection to multiple
use (44). The question of alternatives and supportive measures outside protected areas has
also become a growing concern. The 1984 State
of the Environment Report of the Organisation
for Economic Cooperation and Development
(O EC D), for example, urges that protected areas
are not enough. Environmentally sensitive policies for nondesignated lands are also needed
(60). This conclusion is reinforced by IUCN’S
Commission on Ecology:
Zoning ordinances could become a powerful conservation tool if extended not only to
construction but to all changes in land use, including agriculture. Programs to preserve areas
where only small natural or seminatural sites
remain within cultivated fields, for example,
are also important. Such efforts can help maintain at least a minimum amount of natural vegetation in hedgerows, tree groves, riparian, and
other areas. Giving conservation advice to
farmers about the value of protected lands
would be an important component of such
controls.
The idea of basing conservation on the fate
of particular species or even on the maintenance
of a natural diversity of species will become
even less tenable as the number of threatened
species increases and their refuges disappear.
Natural areas will have to be designed in conduction with the goals of regional development
and justified on the basis of ecological processes operating within the entire developed region and not just within natural areas.
In many countries, however, land management agencies have little or no authority to oversee activities of other agencies or to veto actions that would be detrimental to maintaining
the land’s natural condition. Although a variety of land-use planning tools are being considered, two prerequisites exist for using them:
Land-use planning may help integrate environmentally sensitive policies in nondesignated
areas. Control options to safeguard genetic
diversity outside protected areas could also be
explored (21,22). Where private land is involved,
general controls could be enforced by imposing restrictions on land use or by instituting
a permit system. These practices are commonly
used for nature conservation and environmental
protection in many western countries, particularly Europe. Permits could be required for all
activities likely to harm certain natural habitats
or ecosystems. This approach requires legislation to authorize the requirement, procedures,
decisions on the conditions to be imposed, and
activities excluded from the permit requirement.
Nonstatutory protection of specific sites
could be achieved through voluntary agreements between the landowner and conservation authorities. Such agreements are more attractive when the landowner is offered certain
incentives, such as tax subsidies or deductions,
for preserving sites. In the United States, such
“conservation easements” are valuable mechanisms for conserving private lands (77).
1. to strengthen the technical capacity to
identify, inventory, and monitor valuable
natural areas; and
2. to provide the legal authority to protect
such areas.
Offsite Activities
Offsite maintenance of biological diversity
is assuming increased prominence due to concern over 10SS of genetic resources. Its prominence is also the result of a greater appreciation
of the important role that offsite maintenance
of wild species can play in conserving species
diversity, especially when linked to onsite programs. However, a number of major resources
remain unprotected in the existing framework,
These include medicinal plants; some industrial plants, such as rubber; a number of animals, including wild and domesticated varieties
and possibly some marine species, for which
commercial breeding techniques are evolving
(58).
To cover existing gaps in maintaining plant
genetic resources, efforts could be made to extend IBPGR’s mandate to assume responsibilities for medicinal plants, industrial plants, and
278 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
minor crops. IBPGR has already expressed
reluctance to assume principal responsibility
for these areas, noting that in many cases, such
efforts should be relegated to national programs
(79). Another option, however, is creation of
a new group to cover these particular interests.
Such an effort should try to establish some organizational affiliation capitalizing on the expertise already acquired by IBPGR.
Perhaps the most blatant gap, however, is in
the area of animal genetic resources. Although
FAO and UNEP have initiated investigations
in this area, no national, regional, or international programs have yet emerged. An international board on animal resources could be
established, with a mandate and approach similar to IBPGR’s, But instead of establishing a
network of national programs, a more reasonable approach might include creating a network
of regional programs, promoting conservation
of animal germplasm and monitoring endangered livestock breeds.
to what is conserved in smaller collections, such
as those maintained by university faculty or private breeders. This exchange often occurs informally through working networks of researchers. In some cases, however, improved data
management systems may be appropriate.
integration
Diversity maintenance programs require complementary efforts between onsite and offsite
conservation, and finding the balance of emphasis is key. The first session of the FAO Commission on Plant Genetic Resources discussed
building this integration by establishing national plant genetic resource centers that would
be closely linked to offsite genebanks and protected area management (41). Such efforts will
require improved cooperation at international
and national levels, along with creative use of
existing laws and programs to meet emerging
management and scientific needs.
Additional international exchange of information is also needed, particularly with respect
CHAPTER 10 REFERENCES
1 American Phytopathological Society, National
Work Conference on Microbial Collections of
Major Importance to Agriculture (St. Paul, MN:
APS, 1981), In: Halliday and Baker, 1985,
2. American Seed Trade Association, “Position Pa-
per of the American Seed Trade Association on
FAO International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources,” May 1984.
3. Anonymous, “European Parliament Votes To
Adopt FAO Undertaking, ” Diversity (9):24-25,
1986a.
4. Anonymous, “New Patent Policy Stirs Seed In-
dustry, ” Diversity (9):6, winter 1986b.
5, Barton, J. H,, “The International Breeder’s Rights
System and Crop Plant Innovation, ” Science
216:1070-1075, June 4, 1982,
6. Barton, J. H., “international/Legal Framework
for Ex-Situ Conservation of Biological Diversity, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.
7. Batisse, M,, “Developing and Focusing the Biosphere Concept, ” Nature and Resources (in
press).
8, Berlan, J. P,, and Lewontin, R., “Breeders’ Rights
and Patenting Life Forms, ” Nature 322: 785-788,
Aug. 28, 1986.
9, Bliss, F. A., “Market and Institutional Factors
Affecting the Plant Breeding System, ” OTA
commissioned paper, 1985.
10. Boardman, R., International Organization and
the Conservation of Nature (Bloomington, IN:
Indiana University Press, 1981).
11. Burhenne, W. E,, International Environmental
L a wr–Multilateral Treaties Series, vols. I-IV
(Berlin, Federal Republic of Germany: Erich
Schmidt Verlag, 1984). In: Lausche, 1985.
12. Butler, L. J., and Marion, B. W., “The Plant Variety Protection Act and the Importance of Public Plant Breeders and Competition in the Seed
Industry,” Journal of Agronomic Education
14(1), 1985,
Chiarappa, L., and Karpati, J. F., “Plant Quarantine and Genetic Resources, ” In: 1984, per 1123 J.H.W. Holden, and J,T. Williams (eds,) London.
14. Cleary, S., Bureau of Oceans and International
13.
Ch. 10—Maintaining Bio/ogica/
15.
16.
Environmental and Scientific Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC, personal
communication, 1986.
Collins, N., “International Inventory and Monitoring for the Maintenance of Biological Diversity, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.
Colwell, R. R., “A World Network of Environmental, Applied, and Biotechnological Research, ”
26.
27.
ASM News 49(2] :72-73, 1983.
17.
18.
Colwell, R. R., notes pertaining to MIRCEN Di-
rector’s Council, personal communication, July
1, 1986.
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), 1984 Report on the
28
Consultative Group and the International Agricultura~ Research It Supports (Washington, DC:
29.
October 1984).
Convention for the Protection and Development
of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region, “Message From the President of
the United States to the 98th Congress, ” 2d sess.,
Treaty Iloc. No. 98-13 (Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1984). In: Lausche,
1985.
20. Curtis, C., president, The Oceanic Society,
Washington, DC, personal communication, September 1985. In: Lausche, 1985.
21 de Klemm, C., “Conservation of Wetlands, Legal and Planning Mechanism s,” Proceedings of
19.
the Conference of the Contracting Parties to the
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Gland,
Switzerland: International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources,
1984). In: Lausche, 1985.
22< de Klemm, C., “Protecting Wild Genetic Resources for the Future: The Need for a World
Treaty, ” National Parks, Conservation, and
30.
31.
32.
33.
Diversity /nternationa//y “ 279
mal Diversity, ” OTA commissioned paper,
1985.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the
United Nations, Report of the Conference of
FAO, zzd sess., Rome, Nov. 5-23, 1983, c83/REP
(Rome: 1983).
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO] of the
United Nations, Commission on Plant Genetic
Resources, Base Collections of Plant Genetic Resources, CPGR: 85/4 (Rome: 1984).
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the
United Nations, First Session of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources, Rome, Mar.
11-15, 1985 (Rome: 1985).
Foose, T. S., “The Relevance of Captive Populations to the Conservation of Biotic Diversity. ”
In: C.M. Schonewald-Cox, et al. Genetics and
Conservation (Menlo Park, CA: The Benjamin/
Cummings Publishing Co., Inc., 1983).
Gregg, W. P., MAB coordinator, U.S. National
Park Service, personal communication, 1986.
Halle, M., deputy director of Conservation for
Development Center, IUCN, personal communication, Gland, Switzerland, 1986.
Halliday, J., and Baker, D., “Technologies T o
Maintain Microbial Diversity, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.
Hawkes, J. G., Plant Genetic Resources: The Impact of International Agriculture Research Centers, Consultative Group on International Agri-
cultural Research (CGIAR), Study paper No. 3
(Washington, DC: The World Bank, 1985).
34, Henson, E. L., “An Assessment of the Conservation of Animal Genetic Diversity at the Grassroots Level, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.
35 Hewitt, W. B., and Chiarappa, 1,., Plant Health
and Quarantine in International Transfer of
Genetic Resources (Cleveland, OH: Chemical
23 Dooge, J. C. I., and Baker, F. W. G., “International
Rubber Co. Press, 1977).
36. Hobbilink, H., “Home-Grown Solutions, ” South,
January 1986, p. 112.
37. Hodges, J., “Animal Genetic Resources in the
Developing World: Goals, Strategies, Management and Current Status, ” Proceedings of Third
Governmental and Non-Governmental Scientific Cooperation, ” Ecology in Practice, Part II:
World Congress on Genetics Applied to Li\estock Production, Lincoln, NE, vol. 10, July 16-
The SociaZ Response, F. D. Castro, F.W.G. Baker,
and M. Hadley (eds. ) (Dublin: Tycooly International Publishing, 1984).
24. Dresser, B., and Liebo, S., “Technologies TO
Maintain Animal Germplasm, ” OTA commis-
22, 1986.
38. International Board for Plant Genetic Resources,
A Global Network of Genebanks (Rome: 1983).
39 International Union for Conservation of Nature
and Natural Resources, and World Wildlife
Fund, Plant AdvisorJ’ Group: Minutes of Third
Meeting, Quetame, Colombia July 6-7, 1986.
Development—The Role of Protected Areas in
Sustaining Societ~’, Proceedings of the World
Congress on National Parks, Bali, Indonesia, October 11-22, 1982 (Washington, DC: Smithsonian
Institution Press, 1984). In: Lausche, 1985.
sioned paper, 1986.
25. Flesness. N.. “Status and Trends of wild Ani-
280 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
40. International
Union for Conservation of Nature
and Natural Resources, 1985 United Nations
List of National Parks and Protected Areas
(Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, England:
1985).
41, International Union for Conservation of Nature
and Natural Resources, “Report of the First
Meeting of the ECG Working Group on In Situ
Conservation of Plant Genetic Resources,” Apr.
11-12, 1985 (Gland, Switzerland: 1985), In:
Lausche, 1985.
42. International Union for Conservation of Nature
and Natural Resources, “Report on IUCN’S Par-
ticipation in the First Session of the FAO Commission on Plant Genetic Resources, ” Rome,
Mar. 11-15, 1985 (Gland, Switzerland: IUCN,
1985), In: Lausche, 1985.
43. International Union for Conservation of Nature
and Natural Resources, World Conservation
Strategy (Gland, Switzerland: 1980).
Union for Conservation of Nature
and Natural Resources, Categories, Objectives,
and Criteria for Protected Areas (Gland, Switzerland: 1978).
45. Kahn, R., “Assessment of Plant Quarantine
Practices,” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.
46, Keya, S.0., Freire, J,, and DaSilva, E. J., “MIRCENS: Catalytic Tools in Agricultural Training
and Development, ” Impact of Science on Society 142:142-151, 1986.
47. Lausche, B., “International Laws and Associated Programs for In-Situ Conservation of Wild
44. International
Species,” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.
48. Lausche, B,, World Wildlife Fund, ~ersonal
communication, June 1986.
49, Lesser, W, H., and Masson, R, T., An Economic
Analysis of the Plant Variety Protection Act
(Washington, DC: American Seed Trade Association, 1983).
50, Loyns, R. M. A., and Begleiter, A, J., “An Examination of Potential Economic Effects of Plant
Breeder Rights on Canada, ” Working Paper,
Policy Coordination Bureau, Consumer and
Corporate Affairs Canada, no date.
51, Lucas, G., and Oldfield, S., “The Role of Zoos,
Botanical Gardens, and Similar Institutions in
the Maintenance of Biological Diversity, ” OTA
commissioned paper, 1985.
52. Lyster, S., International Wildlife Law (Cambridge, England: Grotius Publications, Ltd.,
1985).
53. MacFadyen, J. T,, “United Nations: A Battle
Over Seeds,” The Atlantic 256(5):36-44, November 1985.
54. Malone, T. F,, and Roederer, J.G. (eds.), Global
Change, The Proceeding of a Symposium sponsored by the International Council of Scientific
Unions (ICSU) during its 20th General Assembly in Ottawa, Canada on Dec. 25, 1984 (New
York: Cambridge University Press, 1985),
55. McGowan, V, F., and Skerman, V.B. D. (eds.),
World Directory of Collections of Micro-organisms (Brisbane, Australia: World Data Center,
1982).
56. Mooney, P. R., “The Law of the Seed, ” Development Dialogue 1(2), 1983.
57. Moulton, W., “Constraints to International Exchange of Animal Germplasm, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.
58, National Council on Gene Resources, Anadromous Salmonid Genetic Resources: An Assessment and Plan for California, prepared for California Gene Resources Program, 1982.
59. National Research Council, UNESCO Science
Program: Impacts of U.S. Withdrawal and Suggestions for Alternative Interim Arrangements,
A Preliminary Assessment (Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1984).
60. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD), 1984 State of the Environment Report (Paris: 1985),
61. Perrin, R. K., Kunnings, K. A., and Ihnen, L, A,,
Some Effects of the U.S. Plant Variety Protection Act of 1970, Economics Research Report
No. 46 (Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University, Department of Economics and Business,
1983). In: Bliss, 1985.
62. Perry, J, S,, “Managing the World Environment, ”
Environment 28(1):10-15, 37-40, January/February 1986.
63. Plucknett, et al,, “Crop Germplasm Conservation and Developing Countries, ” Science 22o:
163-169, Apr. 8, 1983.
64. Porter, J. R,, “The World View of Culture Collections,” The Role of Culture Collections in the
Era of Molecu)ar Biology, R.R. Colwell (cd.)
(Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology, 1976]. In: Halliday and Baker, 1985.
65. Rubinoff, I., “The Preservation of Tropical
Moist Forests: A Plan for the South, ” unpublished, 1984.
66. Simon, J., “Disappearing Species, Deforestation,
and Data,” New Scientist, May 15, 1986, pp.
60-63.
67. Stiles, S., “Biotechnology: Revolution or Evolution for Agriculture?” Diversity 8:29-30, winter 1986.
68, Sun, M,, “The Global Fight Over Plant Genes, ”
Science 231:445-447, Jan. 31, 1986.
69. Sweatman, I. M,, “The World Conservation
Ch. 10—Maintaining Biological Diversity Internationally
Bank, ” Project of the International Wilderness
I,eadership Foundation, 1986.
70. Tooze, W., “S~~dS of Dis[;ord, ” ~arron ‘s, July
30, 1984.
71. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, “Action Plan for Biosphere
Reserves, IVat[lre and Resources XX(4):1 1-22,
1984.
72
IJnitd N’ations Educational Scientific, and Cul-
tural Organization, International Co-ordinating
Council for the Programme on Man and the Biosphere, Ninth Session, MAB/Icc-9/coNF.4,
Paris, Oct. 23, 1986.
73. United Nations Environment Programme, Register of International Treaties and Other Agreements in the Field of the Environment (Nairobi,
Kenya: 1984), In: Lausche, 1985,
74. United Nations Environment Programme, Glohal Resources Information Database (Nairobi:
UNEP/GEMS, 1985].
75. United Nations Environment Pro,qramme, “UNEP
and Protected Areas—Review of Joint Activities
Carried Out by CJNEP and FAO, IUCN and the
UNESCO MAB Program me 1973 -1982,” paper
presented at the World National Parks Congress,
Bali, Indonesia, Oct. 11-22, 1982 (Nairobi: 1982).
76,. United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, “Declaration on the Human Environmerit, ” Keesing’s Contemporary Archives, Sept.
16-23, 1972, pp. 25476-25479. In: Lausche, 1985.
77. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Grassroots Conservation of Biological
●
281
DiversitJ in the united States, OTA-BP-F-38
(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1986).
78 Walter, S. M., and Birks, H., “Botanic Gardens
and Conservation, ” WWF Plants CampaignPlant pac No. 5 (Gland, Switzerland: World
Wildlife Fund, 1984).
79. Williams, J. T., “A Decade of Crop Genetic Resources Research. ” In: J.H. W. Holden and I.T.
Williams, Crop Genetic Resources: Conseri~ation and Et~aluation (Boston: George Allen & Unwin, 1984),
80, Williams, S. B,, “Protection of Plant Varieties
and Parts as Intellectual Property, ” Science
225:18-23, July 6, 1984.
81. Witt, S. C,, Biotechnology and Genetic Di~~ersit}~
(San Francisco: California Agricultural Lan(fs
Project, 1985).
82< Witt, S. C., “FAO Still Debating Germplasm Issues, ” Di~ersitJ (8):24w25, winter 1986.
83< Wood, H. W., Jr., “The United Nations World
Charter for Nature: The Developing Nations’
Initiative To Establish Protections for the Environment ,“ Environmental Lawr Quarter]J 12(4):
977-998, 1985.
84,
World Resources Institute, Tropical Forests; A
CaZl for Action, Report of an International Task
Force convened by the World Resources Institute, The World Bank, and the United Nations
Development Programme (Washington DC:
1985).
Chapter 11
Biological Diversity and
Development Assistance
CONTENTS
Page
Highlights .o. Q*a***, *o** .*oo*** **ee*o* o*. *@*************e********** 285
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***,*..,**********.******************.*** 285
Integration of Economic Development and Biological Diversity
287
Maintenance
U.S. Response .*.,,**.*.**************.* ***.*,**,**************** 289
Implementation of U.S. Initiatives: The Agency for International
291
Development
The Role of Multilateral Development Banks b e************************* 294
Promotion of Capacity and Initiatives in Developing Countries . ..........296 ~ÿ
...
.296
Building Public Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..$ . * , . *
Establishing an Information Base . . . . . . . . . . .* , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .298
Building Institutional Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . * * .0 * , . . . . . ..299
. .
300
Promoting Planning and Management. . . . . .
Increasing Technical Capacity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . , , . , , . . . . . . , 0 . 0 . . 302
Increasing Direct Economic Benefits of Wild Species Q * 4. * s . . . . 303
Chapter 11 ‘References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . * . . . . . . * * *.*,**.** 305
●
*
.
,
*
*
*
.
*
o
*
.
.
#
.
c
*
o
*
.
O
*
*
*
*
*
.
*
* . * *
*
*
*
*
*
o
*
a
*
*
O
*
@
o
*
*
*
*
.
*
*
*
*
a
0
*
●
●
. * * *
6 * .
* . * *
o # e * * * .
* . .
* * .
* * .
* * * @
●●
●
* . .
* * o *
●
.
* * * * * * * * * a
●●●●●
●●●●
●
●
●●●●
●●
●●
●
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
●
●
●
●
● ● ● ● ● ●
●●
●
●●
●
●
Table No.
11-1. Country Environmental Profiles Undertaken or Supported by
the Agency for International Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..293
Boxes
Box NO.
Page
11-A. U.S. Stake in Maintaining Biological Diversity in Developing
Countries *., *o. **69 **o* 0*. ..*. .. ***@Q*.***********"***'""*"** 286
11-B, Amendments to Foreign Assistance Act Concerning International
Environmental Protection ● ..**,..**************@*************** 290
Chapter 11
Biological Diversity and
Development Assistance
HIGHLIGHTS
The United States has a stake in maintaining biological diversity in developing
countries. Many of these nations are in regions where biological systems are
highly diverse, pressures that degrade diversity are most pronounced, and the
ability to forestall a reduction in diversity is least well developed.
With recent amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act and earmarking of finds,
the United States has defined maintaining biological diversity as an important
objective in U.S. development assistance. It is unclear, however, whether the
Agency for International Development (the principle U.S. development assistance agency) can effectively promote conservation of biological diversity.
Development assistance can help improve the capacity of developing countries to maintain diversity by 1) building public support; 2) establishing an information base; 3) building institutional support; 4) promoting planning and
management; 5) increasing technical capacity; and 6) increasing the direct economic benefits from sustainable use of biological resources.
Multilateral development banks strongly influence the nature of resource development in developing countries. Recent congressional pressures to encourage
these banks to place greater emphasis on environmental implications of their
activities, including threats to biological diversity, have met with some success. Continued monitoring of progress in this area is necessary to enhance
progress made to date.
INTRODUCTION
Concern about the loss of biological diversity is acute for developing countries for several reasons. First, the level of diversity is
greater in developing countries particularly in
tropical locations, than it is in industrial countries. Second, biological diversity is less welldocumented in developing countries. Third,
conversions of natural ecosystems to humanmodified landscapes are more pronounced and
likely to accelerate in developing countries due
to the combined pressures of population growth
and poverty. Fina]]y, developing countries
characteristically lack both the technical and
financial resources to address these issues.
The United States has a stake in maintaining
biological diversity, particularly in developing
countries, The rationale for assisting developing countries rests on the following:
1. recognition of the substantial benefits of
a diversity of plants, animals, and microorganisms;
2. evidence that degradation of ecosystems
can undermine U.S. support of economic
development efforts; and
3. esthetic and ethical motivations to avoid
irreversible loss of unique life forms (see
box 11-A).
285
.
.—.
Ch. 11—Biological Diversity and Development Assistance
●
287
INTEGRATION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY MAINTENANCE
Interests and activities of development agencies and conservation organizations have
merged in recent years, in light of the changing perspectives of these two groups, Historically, conservation organizations and development agencies planned their efforts
independently in developing countries (64).
Conservation groups focused almost exclusively on natural areas, promoting protection
from human exploitation and preservation of
particular wild species and their habitats. In
contrast, development organizations focused
on raising the standard of living in both rural
and urban areas and concentrated on the major agricultural species.
Increasingly, development assistance agencies and developing country governments are
establishing policies that recognize the importance of environmental factors in development
strategies. These policies stem from a growing
awareness in development planning of the costs
of ignoring environmental factors. The greater
reliance of developing-country economies on
their natural resource base—soils, fisheries, and
forests—underlies this growing appreciation for
sustainability in development initiatives.
Planning began to include environmental
considerations in cost-benefit and similar analyses during the 1970s. The emphasis was on
mitigating side effects, such as pollution and
salinization. By the late 1970s, development
agencies began to include components to sustain the resource base that affected a project.
Watershed protection above irrigation systems
received funding, for instance, Development
assistance in the early 1980s supported projects
to deal directly with the problems associated
with natural resource degradation, such as fuelwood shortages in arid regions.
Although maintaining biological diversity has
not become an objective of assistance projects,
these steps led toward development that generally caused less resource degradation and
thus generally benefited diversity maintenance,
In the 1983 Amendment to the Foreign Assis-
tance Act (described in the next section), Congress directed the Agency for International Development (AID) to support projects that have
maintenance of biological diversity as a specific objective, such as establishing protected
areas and controlling poaching.
Conservation organizations, in turn, realized
that their traditional emphasis on establishing
parks and protected areas would be insufficient
to protect biological diversity and began to
broaden their approach. These groups have increasingly realized that failure to account for
the needs of rural people jeopardizes the longterm success of conservation projects.
A clear manifestation of conservationists’ efforts to reorient their activities is the development of the World Conservation Strategy
(WCS). This document links conservation with
development and provides policy guidelines for
determining development priorities that secure
sustainable use of resources (20). The WCS has
three principal objectives: 1) the maintenance
of essential ecological processes, 2) the preservation of genetic diversity, and 3) the sustainable use of species and ecosystems. The document is used to increase dialog on the interests
and approaches of the development and conservation communities. It has been only partially successful, however. The WCS has been
effective in narrowing the gap of conservation
and development interests in policy documents,
but on a practical basis this gap remains.
Part of the problem with linking development
and conservation lies in the failure to identify
common criteria and benefits. Conservation
activities generally justify projects by biological and esthetic criteria. For example, conservation organizations would draw attention to
the Tuatara (Sphenodon punctatus) of New
Zealand because it is the last remaining species of an entire order of reptiles (32). Unique
or spectacular habitats are also given special
attention. Conservation organizations also focus on spectacular species of birds or mammals,
largely in response to the esthetic interests of
contributors,
288 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
Development initiatives, on the other hand,
are directed by economic criteria. Internal rates
of return and similar economic analyses, for
example, are important steps in justifying particular projects. This emphasis can be detrimental for biological diversity because many values
associated with maintaining diversity are difficult to measure (see ch. 2) and thus are undervalued in development project decisions
(28). The standard economic approach may be
unable to account for the loss of biological
diversity, where time horizons are long, benefits are diffuse, and losses are irreversible (37),
The problem is particularly acute for weakened
economies where overexploiting renewable resources to meet immediate needs often undermines the chances for long-term sustainability
of resources.
Lack of institutional overlap also presents
problems in defining common ground among
development and conservation interests.
Responsibilities for natural resources are generally split among agencies (e. g., agriculture,
forestry, and wildlife). Despite efforts by developing countries to establish offices responsible for broader environmental issues, the agencies are frequently unable to add conservation
components to development activities, let alone
to compete with other agencies for financial
or administrative support.
Another management problem that can hinder efforts to protect a particular habitat or species is the imbalance between the means
devoted to conservation enforcement and the
market value of the protected resource. The salaries of officials assigned to enforce conservation measures can be extremely low compared
to the worth of the resources they are guarding. Perhaps a more difficult dilemma is trying to dissuade local populations from exploiting or degrading protected areas when
subsistence requirements and lack of alternatives compel them to do so.
This problem raises a central question in
defining the role of development assistance in
maintaining biological diversity. Should development assistance support diversity maintenance if such initiatives have adverse impacts
on the people it is intended to help? Current
legislation (discussed later in this chapter)
stresses the beneficial aspects of maintaining
diversity in overall development. But some
diversity maintenance projects can conflict
with local development interests. For instance,
conflict can arise by denying access to resources on protected lands. Wildlife conservation efforts in proximity to agricultural lands
may also threaten crops, domestic livestock,
and even humans (9).
In examining the issue of possible conflicts
between development and diversity maintenance, it is perhaps useful to define two approaches to maintaining diversity. First is the
symptomatic approach. This is the approach
typically undertaken by environmental groups
and is often directed at protecting a particular
species and its habitat. Because of the focused
nature of this approach, needed interventions,
usually involving strict protective measures, are
often easy to define. However, such a program
can be costly and difficult to implement, especially if initiated only after threats reach a critical point. Problematic from a development perspective is the case where strict protective
measures impinge on the interests of local populations.
Alternatively, there is a curative approach to
threats to diversity. This approach attempts to
address the root causes of the threats to diversity. It generally involves a much broader array of initiatives and is less focused on diversity per se. It emphasizes the human element
of the conservation equation.
The greatest threats to diversity in developing countries stems less from the impacts of
development than from a lack of development.
Addressing the root causes of threats to diversity will therefore need to emphasize the availability of opportunities for individuals in developing countries to enhance their quality of
life. This is the approach generally taken by development assistance agencies in their efforts
to elevate standards of living by creating employment opportunities and increasing access
to education, health care, and family planning.
_—
Ch. 1 l—Biological Diversity and Development Assistance . 289
Both approaches will be necessary in meeting the challenges of diversity maintenance,
Within the context of U.S. interests to promote
diversity maintenance through the channels of
development assistance, it is important to stress
areas of overlap between these two approaches,
That is, emphasis should be placed on promoting the type of projects that, on the one hand,
promote opportunities for local populations
and, on the other hand, maintain the diversity
within biological systems.
This approach is based on the proposition
that the best way to maintain diversity within
a development initiative is to use that diversity,
Examples abound of efforts to capitalize on
diversity maintenance in areas ranging from
tourism to biological resource development (9).
This utilitarian approach should be approached
with caution, however. It is important to ensure that initiatives will be environmentally,
economically, and institutionally sustainable
over the long term. Identifying possibilities for
multiple uses of an area or biological resource
should be stressed. Further, it is important to
ensure that the benefits of such interventions
actually accrue to the people affected,
A consensus exists that long-term conservation must have a base of support at the national
level and account for the interests and par-
After nearly a decade of legislative and
administrative concern about the role of U.S.
foreign assistance in environmental protection
(see box 11-B), the case for U.S. action to conserve diversity in developing countries was recognized in Section 119 of the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA), added by Congress as part of
the International Environment Protection Act
of 1983 (Public Law 180-64). This amendment
includes the following:
authorizes the President to furnish assistance to countries in protecting and maintaining wildlife habitats and in developing
sound wildlife management and plant conservation programs (Sec. l19(b));
ticipation of local populations. It seems reasonable, therefore, to stress these criteria in development assistance projects supporting
biological diversity. These criteria provide consistency in U.S. interests in conservation and
development and promote projects most likely
to succeed. Cases will arise in which the particular focus of protection inevitably conflicts
with local demands. Resolving such conflicts
is the responsibility of local or national governments, although foreign assistance can be
useful, especially in providing resources to facilitate or compensate for a particular intervention. Whether such support should be considered under particular development assistance
or through other channels is not clear,
The greatest opportunities, however, lie in
taking a more forward-looking and anticipatory
approach by helping countries define strategies
and policies to preempt such conflicts. Support
for planning, management, and inventory of
diversity, promoting in-country expertise, and
constituencies to support diversity maintenance initiatives help reduce the incidence of
conflict between development and diversity
maintenance. In the final analysis, the success
of U.S. support for maintaining diversity in developing countries will depend on success in
promoting the capacity in the developing countries themselves.
●
●
directs the Administrator of AID, in consultation with the heads of other appropriate government agencies, to deveIop a U.S.
strategy including specific policies and
programs to protect and conserve biological diversity in developing countries (Sec.
119(c)); and
requires the President to report annually
to Congress on the implementation of Section 119 (Sec. l19(d)).
Section 119 signals Congress’ belief that U.S.
development assistance should specifically initiate projects traditionally undertaken by conservation organizations. In effect, AID has been
directed to deal not only with the foundations
290 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
Box 11-Ih-Amamdmamm w I%m#gn AtMstamca Am Cwmming
fkmgreasionalcmmern
w
i
t
h tal proteetim has Wmmwd markedly over
the last decade. U.% foreign aasi~tqnco @qpmns bqym iwmgpomting mwkmmental concerns in
the lata 1970a when a mriaa of to b Foreign Assistance Aat defined the Agency fbr
International Dtwekqmwnt% [AID) mandate in the area of emdronment and natural reimurcas, ‘I%esa
arnendmentd gave sptwific emphasis to promoting efforts to hah tropical deforestation, a major threat
to conserving biokgical diversity.
addrwm
Added rww Section 118 on “R@ronrnent and Natural Resources,” authorizing AID
to fortify “the capacity of less dtwdqed countries to protect and manage their environment and natural resources” and to “maintain and where possible restore the land,
vegetation, water, wildlife, and other resourcw upon which depend economic growth
and well-being, especially that of the poor.” ~
● 1978:
Amended Section 118, requiring AID to carry out country studies in the developing
world to identifi natural resource problems and institutional mechanisms to solve them.
● 1078/7$: Amended Section 103 to emphasiza formtry assistance, acknowledging that deforestation, with its attendant specias loss, constituted an impediment to meeting basic human naeds in devekqh~ cmmtrif3s.
● 1$81:
Amended Section 118, maktng AID’s environmental review regulations part of the act,
and added a mbmctkm [d], #xpressing that “CQngrms is particularly concerned about
the continuiq and aecsbating alteration, destruction, and loss of tropical forests in
developing countries.” Instructs the Presickmt to take them concerns into account in
formulating policies and programs r&ting to bilatwal and multilateral assistance and
to private sector activities in the developing world.
● 1988:
Added Section 119, directing AID in consultation with other Federal agencies to develop a U.S. strat~gy on conserving biological diversity in developing countries.
Redesignated Se&on 11$ as Section 117 with the new Section 118 addressing tropical
forest issues.
Amended Section 119, whi~h among other things earmarked money for biological diversity projects.
●
1977:
SOURCE: Adapted from B. Rich and S. Schwartzmani ‘The Role of Development Assistance in Maintaining Biological Diversity k$ftu in
Developing Countries,” (3TA commissioned paper, 19S5.
implementation of Section 119 a year later.
but this is done without any indication of funding mechanisms. Some critics have questioned
whether the strategy advances a cohesive plan
and whether U.S. Government agencies are significantly increasing their allocation of resources to address this issue (54,58). Severe budget constraints undoubtedly limit the degree to
which new programs can be put forward. It is
therefore critical for agencies to establish clear
priorities and to indicate which actions need
to be taken and how much they will cost.
The strategy has been criticized for lack of
commitment to action, even though it contains
67 recommendations. Its most concrete aspect
is allocation of responsibilities among agencies,
AID drafted an Action Plan on Conserving
Biological Diversity in Developing Countries,
to apply the general recommendations to specific agency programs and policies (51). It pro-
of the threats but also with some of the consequences.
The U.S. Strategy on the Conservation of Biological Diversity: An Interagency Task Force
Report to Congress was delivered to Congress
in February 1985, in response to Section 119.
This report was followed by an annual report,
Progress in Conserving Biological Diversity in
Developing Countries FY1985, which outlines
—
——
Ch. 11—Biological Diversity and Development Assistance . 291
poses specific actions based on strategy recommendations and assigns them a priority of
near-term (within the next two fiscal years) or
long-term (requiring additional or redirected
resources). However, it is clear that initiatives
are determined by funding restrictions rather
than by critical needs.
Another difficult y with the draft action plan
is reflected in responses from various AID missions. Reviews of the draft express skepticism
that specific initiatives can be implemented at
the mission level, based solely on the broad,
generalized directions it contains. Recent congressional earmarking of the AID budget to
support diversity projects further emphasizes
the need to develop a more refined strategy for
identifying priority projects.
Despite the criticisms of AID’s draft action
plan, it represents the agency’s effort to identify its responsibilities for about half of the 67
recommendations contained in the strategy.
Other Interagency Task Force members have
yet to identify how their resources and expertise could be applied to the strategy. Development of action plans by other Federal agencies
may be a useful way to identify strengths and
opportunities within each agency, to identify
areas for cooperation, and to provide a way to
examine agency commitments more effectively.
IMPLEMENTATION OF U.S. INITIATIVES: THE AGENCY FOR
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Overall, AID has developed an extensive set
of guidelines and procedures for programs to
incorporate concerns for the environment. To
this extent, it deserves high marks compared
with other development assistance agencies,
both bilateral and multilateral. Less evident,
however, are indications that these procedures
are being consistently implemented, Critics
question AID’s incorporation of environmental
assessments of project development at a stage
when modifications can be easily made (67),
Several factors limit AID’s implementation
of biological diversity initiatives in developing
countries, including a belief by the agency that
it is adequately addressing biological diversity,
declining budgets and staff to initiate projects,
and an inadequate number of trained personnel to address conservation issues.
Defining the maintenance of biological diversity as a priority is viewed with some trepidation at the highest levels of AID (27), The issue
is seen as one among many priorities (e. g.,
women in development, child welfare, and so
on) identified in the Foreign Assistance Act,
Although such mandates have been partially
effective, their numbers, the frequency of
changes, and the lack of priority among them
may hamper efficient management of agency
resources (16,53,60).
AID has been forced to allocate declining resources in response to various congressional
mandates. It is unlikely that programs to safeguard diversity can compete successfully for
an increased share of the AID budget. Reviews
of AID’s implementation of environmental
projects provide reason to be skeptical (16,41).
Because diversity conservation is related to
many factors (e. g., poverty, population pressure, pollution, and agricultural policies), AID
believes its obligations are largely addressed
by conventional assistance projects (41), For instance, the February 1985 task force report to
Congress identified 253 projects as having a
conservation component (62). Few of these,
however, are the types of projects identified in
Section 119. Most involve more indirect contributions, such as reducing destructive pressures on habitats.
These indirect initiatives are critical, of
course. Without them, the long-term prospects
for biological diversity would be dismal. perhaps projects identified in Section 119 should
be viewed as supplemental measures or as attempts to designate important conservation
292 “ Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
areas while they can still be easily protected.
One concern, however, is that Section 119, as
the central piece of legislation addressing concerns for maintaining diversity in developing
countries, may define biological diversity, and
the initiatives to conserve it too narrowly.
Congress has expressed dissatisfaction with
the level of funding AID has directed to meeting the provisions of Section 119 by earmarking $2.5 million for diversity projects in fiscal
year 1987. This amount represents the only
specified funding for environmental projects
contained in the FAA. That this appropriation
is intended to account for diversity on three
continents, however, stresses the need to allocate this funding judiciously. Also of concern
is the impact of this earmarking on support for
other conservation initiatives, such as those in
Sections 117 and 118 of FAA that lack any specific funding provisions.
Yet simply allocating new funds for diversity
projects may not be an adequate response. If
projects are proposed to meet a spending target without allocations based on an established
set of priorities, efforts may be inefficient or
even counterproductive.
The agency’s commitments to biological
diversity projects and to acting on environmental concerns have been eroded by the
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act (70). Overall, 4.3
percent of AID’s 1986 budget was sequestered,
but the Office of Forestry, Natural Resources,
and the Environment (FNR) had its budget cut
25 percent (26). Such reductions indicate where
agency priorities lie and add credence to claims
that despite a commitment to environmental
concerns, commitment in the form of resource
allocation lags.
It should also be noted, however, that the two
major funding sources (the Agricultural, Rural Development, and Nutrition account and
the Selected Development Activities account)
that support most environmental projects also
suffered disproportionate cuts—15.5 and 20.6
percent (50). These reductions reflect congressional, not AID, appropriations.
One proposed way to increase the emphasis
and visibility of environmentally related issues
is to elevate FNR to a bureau (10). Because many
of the funding allocation decisions are made
at the bureau level, this change in status may
increase the share of resources devoted to diversity projects. Such an action, on the other hand,
could isolate a newly established bureau.
An alternative is to establish a separate funding source, such as a Forestry, Natural Resources, and Environment account, for various bureaus and offices as well as overseas
missions to draw on, Several functional accounts (e. g., Agriculture, Rural Development,
and Nutrition; and Population and Health) already exist. Establishing an additional account
will likely be seen as further constraining AID’s
flexibility. It would, however, place resources
behind congressional concerns for biological
diversity and the environment and natural resources generally, as outlined in Section 119
as well as Sections 117 and 118.
Another approach would seek to incorporate
biological diversity concerns into AID development activities at different levels of the
agency ranging from general policy documents
at the agency level to more strategic efforts at
the regional bureau and missions levels. AID
could prepare a policy determination (PD) document on biological diversity that would serve
as a general statement that maintaining diversity is an explicit objective of the agency.
Existence of a PD could mean that consideration of diversity concerns would, where appropriate, become an integral part of sectoral programming and project design. Further, it would
require that projects be reviewed and evaluated
by the Bureau of Program and Policy Coordination for consistency with the objectives of
the PD. Because of the increase in bureaucratic
provisions this would create, the formulation
of a PD on diversity would probably not be well
received within AID.
The three regional bureaus (i.e., Africa, Asia
and Near East, and Latin America and the
Caribbean) could also prepare documents that
Ch. 1 l—Biological Diversity and Development Assistance
identify important biological diversity initiatives in their regions. The Asia and Near East
Bureau, in fact, has already prepared such a
document. But the lack of agency commitment
and the hesitancy of the bureau to redirect
scarce funds have reduced the document’s utility thus far. The Africa Bureau is currently completing a natural resources management plan
that includes an assessment of regional priorities for biological diversity maintenance.
The development of such reports for each regional bureau is considered an effective way
to identify priorities for projects, especially
given the earmarking of funds. A network of
specialists and information sources already exists to help identify priority areas. For example, committees of the International Union for
the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (I UC N), and especially its Conservation Monitoring Center in Cambridge, England,
are major sources of such information.
AID country-level environmental profiles can
also identify priorities for diversity projects.
The agency has completed 50 preliminary
Phase I profiles and 17 in-depth Phase II profiles (see table 11-1), AID has also supported
“state of the environment” reports in five countries, which are similar to environmental profiles but generally prepared within the country by a local group (18).
The most important focus of biological diversity strategies is at the mission level, where
projects are implemented. Congress has already
mandated that Country Development Strategy
Table 11-1 .—Count~ Environmental Profiles
Undertaken or Supported by the Agency
for International Development
Areas with ~rofiles
State of the
Phase I Phase II environment
profile
profile
report
AsidNear East/North
Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Latin America/Caribbean . 14
Sub-Saharan Africa . . . . . 21
1
14
2
2
2
1
Total . . . . . . . . . . . 50
17
5
SOURCE
International Institute for Enwronment and Development, Environmental Planning and Management Project, “Country Environmental Proftles, Natural Resource Assessments and Other Reports on the State
of the Environment “ Washington, DC, May 1986
●
293
Statements and other country-level documents
prepared by AID address diversity concerns.
Most missions, however, lack the expertise or
adequate access to expertise needed to address
this provision of Section 119 as amended.
AID has recently developed a concept paper
to explore the desirability of establishing a
diversity project within AID’s Bureau of Science and Technology. Benefits of such a project
include centralizing access to funding and perhaps expertise on biological diversity. The preliminary nature of the concept paper, however,
makes more critical assessment premature.
In response to AID funding cuts, staff cuts,
and a move to cut management units, conservation groups have proposed several ways to
loosen up money for biological diversity projects (2,6). Of particular interest are calls for
greater use of Public Law 480 funds for conservation projects. This option has both precedence (52) and the potential to increase activities in this area. It would enable a relatively
small dollar amount to be supplemented with
larger amounts of foreign currency. The use
of excess foreign currencies by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (discussed later in this
chapter) provides further opportunities.
Matching grants provided to conservation
organizations offers another cost-effective way
to promote projects. AID matching grants to
World Wildlife Fund-U.S. for its Wildlands and
Human Needs Projects and to The Nature Conservancy International for its network of Conservation Data Centers are good examples of
such public/private cost-sharing initiatives.
Another constraint to implementing Section
119 is the lack of adequately trained personnel
in environmental sciences within AID (6,10,67).
Although AID designates an environmental officer at each mission, the person may have little background in environmentally related issues. The duties of an environmental officer
are included with numerous other duties; few
AID personnel are full-time environmental
officers.
The agency could recruit personnel with environmental science backgrounds and provide
294 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
further training to officers to address this problem. Developing-country professionals could
also be enlisted as environmental officers
within the missions. This action would be consistent with recent agency emphasis on reducing the U.S. presence in AID missions for economic as well as security reasons.
Taking advantage of expertise that exists
within other U.S. agencies (e.g., National Park
Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Smithsonian Institution, and Peace Corps)
could also significantly enhance the effectiveness of development assistance. The agency already has a Resource Services Support Agreement with the U.S. Department of Agriculture
to provide forestry expertise and services. Such
mechanisms can be used to establish a formal
agreement with agencies such as the Department of the Interior to provide AID missions
with access to conservation expertise, In addition, other agencies such as the Peace Corps
are already supporting some projects in the field
Multilateral development banks (MDBs) are
the largest providers of development assistance
and have considerable influence on development policy and financing. In this capacity,
they are uniquely situated to influence environmental aspects of development (40). In 1983,
the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, the African Development Bank, and
the Asian Development Bank in 1983 loaned
at least $20 billion to fund projects in developing countries—nearly three times the amount
committed by the U.S. Agency for International
Development, the largest bilateral agency.
Funds loaned by MDBs are supplemented by
larger amounts from governments of recipient
countries, and many projects receive cofinancing from other development agencies and private banks. For every dollar loaned by the
World Bank, for example, more than 2 additional dollars are raised from other sources (41).
Many countries modify their development
policies in response to MDB suggestions and
that focus on biological diversity, Increased collaboration between AID and the Peace Corps
can be mutually beneficial.
Section 119 states the following:
. . . whenever feasible, the objectives of this section shall be accomplished through projects
managed by appropriate private and voluntary
organizations, or international, regional, or national nongovernmental organizations INGOs]
that are active in the region or country where
the project is located.
A number of NGOs are already working with
AID in developing capacity to maintain diversity in developing countries. These include important initiatives in the areas of conservation
data centers, of supporting development of national conservation strategies, and of implementing field projects. AID is also using a private NGO to maintain a listing of environmental
management experts. Such partnership could
continue to be encouraged by Congress through
oversight hearings, for instance.
pressures. An important element is the developing-country sector work of the MDBs-policy
documents produced as background material
to help identify priorities in lending.
MDB’s influence on policy can be the single
most important influence in many countries on
the development model adopted (41). Because
agricultural, rural development, and energy policies can have profound effects on habitats,
diversity in developing countries can be significantly affected by MDB policies.
The most immediate effect of MDBs on maintaining biological diversity may be support for
creating protected areas. The World Bank has
been the leader among development banks in
this area—the bank has financed the protection
of 59,000 square kilometers in 17 countries. It
has funded entire conservation projects—for
instance, a wildlife reserve and tourism project
in Kenya. More often, it has included conservation components in larger projects—for in-
.
stance, a protected area in conjunction with
an irrigation project in Indonesia. In this case,
the designated area protects tropical forest and
wildlife while providing key watershed management services. Even conservation components that represent a small fraction of a
project’s total cost can play a substantial role
in preserving diversity.
The performance of MDBs in preserving diversity depends on their more general environmental policies and the degree to which these
policies are implemented. In this regard, the
banks have issued statements emphasizing the
need for sound environmental management
projects.
The World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank,
and six other multilateral in 1980 signed a
“Declaration of Environmental Policies and
Procedures Relating to Economic Developmerit. ” As a result, these organizations formed
the Committee of International Development
Institutions on the Environment (CIDIE), under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). CIDIE has met
five times since 1980 to exchange information
on progress and plans of MDBs for improving
their environmental performance. Under the
terms of agreement, the agencies will perform
systematic environmental analyses of activities,
fund programs and projects designed to solve
environmental problems, manage resources
sustainably, and provide support for improving
environmental policymaking institutions and
their capacity to implement environmental controls in developing countries.
A study prepared by the International Institute for Environment and Development for the
fourth CIDIE meeting found, however, that the
commitment of MDBs to sound environmental
management in development projects was not
effectively translated into action. The study
came to the following conclusions:
The fact that we found so little evidence of
the application of existing guidelines suggests
that either they have been tried and found useless, or that agencies have not made sufficient
resources and incentives available to sustain
Ch. 11—Biological Diversity and Development Assistance
●
295
their use. We suggest that some agencies never
put some guidelines into operation because
their function is to improve public relations.
. . . In many cases, staff do not use guidelines
because agencies do not require their use, nor
provide appropriate training and resources,
nor establish any institutional penalties for failing to use them (16).
A number of congressional hearings have
brought to light evidence of serious ecological
problems resulting from projects supported by
MDBs (54,55,56,57). Through testimony presented at these hearings, several categories of
projects were identified that may directly contribute to large-scale environmental destruction. Categories cited as problematic included
large-scale cattle ranching (especially in the
tropics), hydroelectric power projects and irrigation systems, and resettlement projects (41).
Evidence of low economic returns and high
environmental costs associated with a number
of these projects suggest that greater scrutiny
of environmental impacts should be applied before MDBs provide financing.
Following these hearings, the House Subcommittee on International Development Institutions and Finance issued a series of recommendations to the U.S. Treasury Department, in
effect proposing a U.S. environmental policy
for MDBs (41). These recommendations were
largely supported by the Treasury Department,
the lead Federal agency for U.S. participation
in these organizations. Included were calls for
increased environmental staffing and mandatory procedures for project review, and for the
U.S. executive directors of the MDBs to try to
modify or oppose projects that would erode the
natural resource base. Recommendations also
emphasized the needs for institution-building
and training in conservation, improved management of protected areas, involvement of indigenous peoples in development planning, and
withdrawal of support from projects that cause
extensive damage to habitats in species-rich
areas.
Because U.S. influence in MDBs has traditionally been strong, a concerted effort from
the U.S. executive directors no doubt could improve MDB environmental performance and
296
●
Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
make significant contributions to maintaining
biological diversity. Emergence of a Wildlands
Management Policy at the World Bank may,
in part, reflect congressional and public attention on the subject. The recently approved policy sets guidelines for the management of natural areas in bank projects. These include
avoiding conversion of wildlands of special
concern, giving preference to using already
converted lands, compensating for the loss of
wildlands by setting aside similar areas, and
preserving relevant wildland areas.
executive directors is likely to be needed, such
as in efforts to enlist greater environmental expertise within the banks. Language contained
in the fiscal year 1986 appropriations bill clearly
reflects congressional interest on this subject
(21).
Consideration could also be given to promoting the approach to diversity maintenance embodied in the recent World Bank policy. To this
end, U.S. representatives could be encouraged
to establish a similar approach within CIDIE.
To maintain momentum, however, continued
congressional oversight and input from U.S.
PROMOTION OF CAPACITY AND INITIATIVES IN
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
A large number of initiatives at the international level have addressed various aspects of
diversity maintenance in developing countries
(see ch. 10). These range from international
meetings to treaties and conventions such as
the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna.
Such initiatives can be important in raising
awareness of the issue and of national responsibilities. They can effectively set standards,
monitor progress, serve as promotional work,
and establish legal norms (8). An international
perspective also enables interested parties to
define global priorities. However, translating
these initiatives into concrete activities requires
that they be implemented and supported at the
national and local levels, underlining the importance of developing national capacities and
constituencies to address loss of diversity.
The responsibility for maintaining biological
diversity within a country’s borders ultimately
falls on national governments. Yet it can be argued that national governments have responsibilities to the international community. Avoiding loss of genetic resources that may meet the
needs of future generations and maintaining
diversity because it represents the biological
heritage of the planet are commonly heard arguments in this regard,
These arguments may be insufficient or unconvincing for many developing countries,
especially when national resources would have
to be devoted to maintaining diversity, yet the
benefits would accrue outside their borders. In
other cases, a country may acknowledge its national interests in maintaining diversity but lack
the resources—both financial and technical—
to stem the loss,
Six priority areas where U.S. bilateral assistance could promote abilities and initiatives in
developing countries have been identified:
building public support, establishing an information base, building institutional support,
promoting planning and management, increasing technical capacity, and increasing economic benefits derived from wild species, Although described separately, these areas are
mutually reinforcing.
Building Public Support
Creating a favorable climate of public opinion is critical to the success of conservation programs, Developing countries commonly lack
an organized base of citizen support; in the few
cases where support has existed, in Ecuador
for example, it has been a key element in efforts to launch programs.
Ch. 11-Biologica/ Diversity and Development Assistance
A study of poor farmers in Costa Rica found
that:
. . . farmers could not comprehend the concept
of “untouchable” forest reserves, The values
of outdoor recreation, wildlife, and biological
diversity may be seen by wealthy policy makers
but they are generally alien to poor farmers
struggling for survival (45).
Consequently, efforts to protect habitats may
depend on demonstrating to rural populations
that they will benefit from such activities and
on soliciting their support in project design and
implementation (36).
Benefits to those in rural areas can be in the
form of actual financial compensation, as in
the Amboseli game reserve in Kenya. Here,
Masai pastoralists participated in designing a
conservation program, and they now benefit
financially from the arrangement through tourist revenues and through employment opportunities (63). Alternatively, local support can
be solicited by convincing people of the importance of maintaining diversity. In Malaysia, for
example, public support was marshaled to protect the Batu caves from quarrying by pointing
out that the durian, a highly valued fruit crop,
depends on cave-nesting bats for pollination
(36),
The opening of the Kuna Indian Udirbi Tropical Forest Reserve, a 5,000-acre park on Panama’s Atlantic coast, resulted from integrating
local peoples’ desire to protect a forested area
of cultural and religious importance with the
establishment of income-generating facilities
for visiting scientists and naturalists. The
project is unusual because it was initiated by
the Kuna themselves and had unanimous support. A number of organizations (including the
Centro Agronomic Tropical de Investigation
y Ensenanze, the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, AID, the Inter-American Foundation, and the World wildlife Fund-U. S.) have
provided technical and financial support, although both the benefits and management
responsibilities are being directed toward the
Kuna (41,69),
Emphasis on environmental education is
another strategy for building public support
297
(36). A major constraint at all school levels is
the shortage of appropriate teaching materials
in local languages (67). Furthermore, most textbooks use examples drawn from temperate
zone ecosystems, which can be difficult for students in the tropics to understand. Development
of teaching materials could help remedy this.
In Costa Rica, the World Wildlife Fund’s conservation and education program, working with
the Ministry of Education and educators and
conservationists from local universities, developed educational material in Spanish for elementary school ecology courses. The material
was tested by 70 teachers in 11 schools, reaching 2,000 students in 1982. The success of the
program led to its adoption by the Ministry of
Education and to the distribution of materials
to all public elementary schools in the country
in 1984. World Wildlife Fund expanded the program into Colombia and Honduras in 1984 and
to Brazil and Guatemala in 1985 (4).
Mobilizing public support through mass information campaigns has also been successful
in developing countries. In Malaysia, for example, numerous private voluntary and nongovernmental organizations, such as the
credit G
An education project in Costa Rica funded by the World
Wildlife Fund allows elementary school students to study
ecology with textbooks in their native language. Above, sixth
graders study relationships between different plant species
The program, begun in 1982, has been expanded to Colombia,
Honduras, Guatemala, and Brazil.
298 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
Malayan Nature Society, the Friends of the
Earth, and the Consumers’ Association of
Penang, conduct information programs to develop public understanding (1),
In a number of campaigns, flagship species
are identified. These are species with high esthetic appeal that are often endemic to a country, and consequently capable of generating
public interest and pride in the nation’s biota.
For instance, the yellow-tailed woolly monkey
—Peru’s largest and most endangered primate—
is the centerpiece of a campaign to protect its
cloud forest habitat in a project begun in 1984
by the World Wildlife Fund-U.S. in conjunction with the Natural History Museum of Lima
and the Peruvian Conservation Foundation (69).
Although this approach has been criticized for
focusing inordinate attention on large mammals at the expense of other endangered taxa,
it has been effective in rallying public support
around certain species, promoting public
awareness and in the process protecting other
endangered species through habitat preservation.
Support for indigenous private and voluntary
organizations has also been identified as an important component of building public support.
Bolstering such organizations can create reliable recipients and managers of conservation
funding with the potential of becoming selfsupporting, a national constituency for exerting pressure on decisionmakers, public awareness for biological diversity, and a grassroots
capacity to respond quickly and flexibly where
governments cannot or will not (13,59). Monitoring development projects for undesirable
environmental impacts is another important
role for these groups.
Experience has shown, however, that this approach has certain constraints (18,59,60). These
include saturating particular groups with funding and distorting the natural growth of these
small organizations. AID, as a large agency usually dealing with large amounts of money, may
be reluctant to initiate contact with many small
organizations to promote small-scale projects.
These concerns can be addressed by working
more closely with umbrella nongovernmental
organizations (e. g., the Environmental Liaison
Centre in Nairobi) or through American groups
that have local counterparts or affiliates in developing countries. Another option is to have
agencies with more experience working at the
grassroots level (e.g., the Peace Corps or the
Inter-American Foundation) take a lead in this
area.
Establishing an Information Base
Conducting an inventory and monitoring the
biota are two key steps that facilitate corrective action in situations where human activity
threatens diversity (5). An inventory can combine a traditional biological survey with the
most modern technology such as remote sensing. It might also simply involve pulling together information on the status, distribution,
and threats to major ecosystems and species
to determine conservation priorities and affect
land-use decisions.
Monitoring biological diversity refers to surveillance of the distribution and abundance of
flora and fauna. The purpose is to detect adverse impacts on species or habitats, assess the
extent to which human activities are responsible, and then promote corrective measures
wherever possible (5).
Although nationally instituted programs to
conduct inventories and monitor biological
diversity are rare, a few examples do serve as
models. The Mexican National Research Institute for Biological Resources (INIREB, from the
full title in Spanish), for instance, prepares an
inventory of plant and animal resources, studies
threatened and endangered species, establishes
reserves and protects habitats of ecological importance, develops alternative land-use strategies, and trains professionals in conservationoriented fields. The range of activities undertaken by INIREB indicates the balanced approach of this organization.
Promoting national or regional databases to
monitor biological diversity is an effective way
to synthesize information and help define research and conservation priorities, A number
of international organizations have developed
Ch. 11-Biological Diversity and Development Assistance . 299
databases of use to governments, assistance
agencies, and conservation organizations, Still,
promoting in-country capacity for such activities is an important goal, First, these databases
can provide a finer evacuation (i. e., of higher
resolution), defining local priorities within a
regional context, than is possible with information covering larger areas. Second, the process can foster in-country expertise and bolster
environmental effectiveness.
A major initiative to develop country-level
Conservation Data Centers (CDCS) in Latin
America and the Caribbean is currently being
undertaken by The Nature Conservancy International (TNCI). CDCS are modeled on the State
Heritage Programs begun 15 years ago in the
United States. To date, six CDCS have been
established in partnership with local institutions, with plans to expand this to 35 programs
by the end of the decade, In terms of bolstering national capacity, the strengths of CDC programs lie in their employment of scientists (a
zoologist, a botanist, an ecologist, and a data
handler); their emphasis on institutionalizing
the system; and their pressure to have local collaborating agencies adopt operational funding
after 3 to 5 years [13).
The CDC programs devote little attention,
however, to public education components. Furthermore, although the programs assemble existing information difficult for foreign institutions (e.g., from world museums and herbaria),
they do little to provide new information in a
region where at least five-sixths of the organisms are unknown (38). Overall these programs
are very useful in identifying areas of conservation interest. Accordingly, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service has contracted with TNC1 to
develop databases on distribution of natural
plant communities and to identify areas of high
endemism and diversity in Latin America (25).
In lieu of formal CDCS, which could take considerable time, resources, and effort to disseminate broadly, some developing countries could
benefit from more modest systems (35). A simple computer in the office in a ministry or
university could record existing studies and
represent a major improvement in national capacity,
Inventorying and monitoring biological resources are also important in maintaining
genetic diversity among domesticated species.
The rate at which farmers are replacing traditional, genetically diverse crop varieties with
more uniform, high-yielding varieties is the subject of much concern in industrial and developing countries. Considerable effort to collect
and store germplasm has already been made
for major crop varieties, with less done for mi-
nor crops and wild relatives.
Efforts have been made to collect data, including prototypes for national databases, on
threatened breeds of livestock in developing
countries (12). But, information on genotype
loss is inadequate to focus initiatives, USDA
could provide assistance in this area through
increased support to the FAO and the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources, for
example, to heIp develop abilities to monitor
losses of livestock and crop genetic resources,
BuildIng
lnstitutional
Support
The greatest obstacles to addressing the loss
of diversity are less technical than economic
and political. Consequently, building institutional capacity—in both the public and private
sectors—is of paramount importance. However,
institution-building through development assistance is a difficult process that requires both
long-term commitment and a stronp appreciation of national sovereignty.
Concern about the environment is a relatively
new addition to the political agendas of developing countries—for many, it dates to the 1972
U.N. Conference on the Human Environment
held in Stockholm, Sweden. At that time, much
of the attention on environmental problems in
developing count ries was generated from outside, notably from industrial countries. Most
lacked a national constituency among government agencies, scientists, environmental
groups, or the general public that perceived a
threat stemming from degradation of the environment {17),
A great deal has changed since then. The
Stockholm Conference accentuated pollution
problems and the need for industrial standard
300 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
setting—concerns most developing country
governments felt were industrial country problems (23). Since then, environmental concerns
have broadened to emphasize conservation of
natural resources. Developing countries are on
average six times more dependent on a productive resource base—soils, fisheries, and
forests—which provides rationale for greater
developing country concerns in this area (43).
Discussions on environmental issues are now
being initiated by developing countries. The
number of environmental agencies has increased since 1972 from about one dozen to 110
(43). However, most agencies have been ineffective in addressing environmental concerns.
This ineffectiveness is due to the constraints
discussed earlier, including a lack of personnel, training, and resources; an inability to compete with established interests; and a lack of
legal authority.
Encouraging the development of institutional
capacity is not easy, but U.S. development assistance agencies have the experience and the legal mandate to help in the process. Initiatives
to enhance the stature, effectiveness, and resources of agencies responsible for conservation have been identified (10). These initiatives
include requiring developing country officials
to submit comments on environmental and natural resource aspects of U.S. development assistance projects and soliciting greater input from
ministries in AID’s development of country
environmental profiles and natural resource
assessments (10).
The process of infusing an awareness of biological resources in overall development planning was an objective in an AID-supported natural resources profile undertaken by the Thai
Development Research Institute—a national
policy analysis group (22). The process is important because it involves identification of
needs and responsibilities of the 24 agencies
in Thailand responsible for natural resources.
Ultimately, the profile should be incorporated
into the country’s 5-year development plan.
An environmental profile of Paraguay illustrates the importance of the process, as much
as the product, for infusing awareness of bio-
logical diversity throughout a country’s institutions (66). This AID-supported project, carried out by the National Planning Secretariat
of the Presidency, involved some two dozen
Paraguayan scientists, technicians, and other
specialists. The emphases on increasing reliance on national scientists and policy makers,
on a broad intersectoral approach, and on support from the highest levels of government are
keys to meeting the objectives of building institutions.
Promoting Planning and
Management
f
As pressures on natural resources in developing countries increase, the need to integrate
conservation and development interests will become more critical. Planning and management
strategies should be included in resource development initiatives—from habitat protection
onsite to germplasm storage offsite—and these
initiatives should consider wild species as well
as domesticates.
Developing a national strategy to conserve
biological diversity should account for the
mixed objectives for maintaining the array of
species, and the mixed status of these groups
(29). A biological continuum of ecosystems, species, populations, and varieties fills various
needs, and various management programs and
techniques are appropriate. Consequently,
management objectives and technologies and
the links between them should be taken into
account, as well as the most urgent problems
to address (29).
One activity that addresses this problem is
the development of national conservation strategies (NCSS), which are general policy statements on the role of conservation in development planning (19). AID began support of an
NCS for Nepal in fiscal year 1985 through the
International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), and it is
continuing to assist in the preparation or implementation of similar strategies for Sri Lanka,
the Philippines, and Zimbabwe (52). Although
the general nature of these documents may limit
their usefulness in implementing specific proj-
Ch. 11—Biological Diversity and Development Assistance
ects, they can be important vehicles for presenting the case for maintaining biological diversity (evidenced by the NCS for Zambia) (44).
●
301
esses affecting protected areas (see ch. 5 for further discussion). Strategies for conserving
diversity are starting to consider this, Conservationists are beginning to promote strategies
that surround protected areas with zones of
compatible land use (such as the UNESCO biosphere reserve program) and to encourage the
use of regional plans to manage resources (such
as the Organization of American States’ integrated regional development planning).
The lack of management plans for specific
protected areas has been identified as a major
problem in almost all developing countries.
without them, most areas suffer from inappropriate development, sporadic and inconsistent management, and lack of clearly defined
management objectives, ways to develop such
plans have been proposed and are being applied
to six major protected areas: Amboseli, Kenya;
Simen Mountains, Ethiopia; Sapo, Liberia;
Khao, Thailand; Sinharaja, Sri Lanka; and Amboro, Bolivia (44). A country may also analyze
its existing parks and protected areas to develop
plans for an orderly allocation of natural areas
(44). Although few examples of such plans exist, methods for doing this analysis have also
been developed. Systems are currently in place
in Brazil, Indonesia, and Dominica (44).
The potential of botanic gardens and zoological gardens as a management tool in developing countries is unclear, but it could be enhanced through links with other institutions
and with existing international networks (see
ch. 10) (24). These institutions occupy a unique
position because of their links between onsite
and offsite efforts. One example proving successful is the Rio de Janeiro Primate Center that
is involved with the captive breeding and reintroduction of the golden lion tamarin (69).
In situ genebanks have received some attention as a way to conserve gene pools of wild
economic plants (see ch. 5). The strategy has
particular relevance for developing countries,
where most of the ancestral stock of current
economic species occurs. General guidelines
for managing such units have been developed
(34). Sri Lanka (for wild medicinal plants), India (for citrus and sugarcane), and Mexico (for
teosinte) have either prepared or are developing plans for in situ genebanks. Efforts are under way to expand this strategy to tropical South
America (35).
Concern over loss of agriculturally important
resources suggests a need to devote more attention to better management of germplasm collection, storage, and use in developing countries, preliminary studies have been conducted
on the feasibility of enhancing national programs in animal germplasm maintenance. A
number of obstacles have been identified: technical constraints, problems of isolation of
breeds, disease control, funding sources for
long-term facilities, and political concerns, such
as where to locate genebanks and who owns
them (15).
Maintaining diversity through traditional
parks and protected areas is becoming difficult
for some nations for economic and political reasons, and it is likely to become less common
in the future. Setting aside land for a single use
can often be an economic impossibility. Some
nations, particularly small countries and islands, do not have the large, undisturbed tracts
of land. The trend is toward integrating reserves
as part of overall development plans, rather
than adding them later as areas separate from
development.
As mentioned earlier, several regional institutions have already identified threatened
breeds of livestock and maintained data on
them. This work is also a starting point for enhancing regional capacities to develop offsite
storage facilities. These institutions, which
could benefit from financial or technical support, include the Inter-African Bureau for Animal Resources in Nairobi, Kenya; International
Livestock Centre for Africa in Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia; Asociacion Latinoamericana de
Production Animal in Maracay, Venezuela;
and the Society for the Advancement of Breeding Research in Asia and Oceania in Kuala Lampur, Malaysia (39).
Few approaches, however, have considered
the role of human activities in ecological proc-
302 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
.—
—
●
The number of crop genetic resource programs in developing countries has increased
dramatically over the last decade. In part, this
increase reflects an awareness of the importance of collecting, maintaining, and evaluating plant germplasm as a prerequisite to meeting future food requirements. Much of the
change is also credited to the International
Board for Plant Genetic Resources (IBPGR),
which has played a catalytic role in encouraging and supporting national genebanks.
Ten years ago, only a handful of genebank
collections existed, primarily in industrial countries. As of 1985, 72 countries—45 of them in
the developing world—had long- or mediumterm germplasm storage facilities in operation
or under construction (33). IBPGR currently has
agreements with 31 countries (25 of them developing ones) to serve as international base
collections for long-term storage of plant germplasm, As the network of long-term collections
approaches its goal of 50, covering 40 major
crops before the end of the century, greater attention will be focused on bolstering mediumterm collections, 100 of which have already
been identified. Facilitating medium-term collections is particularly important for those developing countries where the costs and technical requirements make the establishment of
long-term facilities impractical.
The operation and effectiveness of various
national plant germplasm programs is uneven.
Particularly disconcerting has been the failure
of some national programs to respond to an
IBPGR Seed Storage Advisory Committee
recommendation to rectify inadequacies and
improve scientific standards at existing facilities (65).
Increasing TechnicaI Capacity
The availability of trained personnel is
another constraint to conservation. The problem has been studied intensively in the Latin
American region and in Africa since the mid1970s (11,31,46,47,48,68). However, neither governments nor international or bilateral development assistance agencies have come forward
with sufficient funding to meet the needs outlined in these studies.
For a total of 50 developing countries, there
are only six technical colleges established to
meet regional training needs for protected area
managers: at Bariloche in Argentina, the Centro Agronomic Tropical de Investigation y Ensenanze in Costa Rica, the Ecole de Fauna in
Cameroon, the College of African Wildlife Management in Tanzania, the Wildlife Institute of
India in Dehra Dun, and the School of Conservation Management in Indonesia at Bogor (44).
Most of these colleges need external support,
and all could be encouraged to augment biological diversity concerns in their curricula.
The efforts of several U.S. Federal agencies
to provide training, technical assistance, and
distribution of technical information hold potential for increasing technical capacity in developing countries. Those involved include the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National
Park Service (NPS), U.S. Forest Service, the
Smithsonian Institution, and National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, Activities
have been outlined in several documents (e.g.,
ref. 61). For example, congressional legislation
to implement the Western Hemisphere Convention directs FWS to devote attention to personnel development in Latin America. This development has been accomplished through several
initiatives, with special emphasis on training
wildlife biologists, where possible, through incountry workshops. The Foreign Service Currency Program allows FWS to provide training in Egypt, India, and Pakistan, Authorized
in Section 8(a) of the Endangered Species Act,
this program allows excess foreign currencies
to be used toward conserving threatened or endangered species in those countries (25).
AID and other government agencies have developed cooperative arrangements with several
U.S. universities, other scientific institutions
(e.g., botanic and zoological institutions), and
private conservation organizations. These arrangements provide avenues to direct assistance funding toward increasing technical capacity and training of country personnel.
The University of Michigan, through funding from Federal agencies (e. g., NPS), has international seminars that provide training in
areas such as park management, forest man-
Ch. 1 l—Biological Diversity and Development Assistance w 303
agement, and coastal-marine management.
FWS has undertaken several projects with
World Wildlife Fund-U.S. to promote expertise
in species and habitat conservation. The
University of Florida, in conjunction with a program offered by the National Zoo’s Conservation and Research Center in Front Royal, VA,
provides hands-on research and training to
developing-country students (4).
U.S. development assistance could promote
technical training through national and regional germplasm conservation and storage
programs. Although most of the support for
training currently comes from international
organizations, principally the IBPGR and the
Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO), USDA could enhance
its activities in this area through the National
Plant Germplasm System and the Forest Service, The thrust of these U.S. agency efforts, however, may be better directed at identifying areas
where assistance could be channeled through
existing training programs.
Specific training on conserving animal resources has been organized through FAO and
UNEP. A 2-week course (taught in English) is
offered through the University of Veterinary
Science in Budapest, Hungary. The primary
goal of this course is to provide developingcountry participants with an overview of the
present state of theory and practice (3). Although this type of training usefully draws attention to the importance of animal genetic resources, conservation strategies will depend on
a commitment by national governments to
avoid haphazard crossing of indigenous breeds
and to monitor the most endangered ones (15).
Training and management are also critical
for operating plant germplasm storage facilities,
A l-year graduate program in conservation and
use of plant resources at the University of Birmingham in England has provided training to
more than 100 developing-country scientists
(14). Some graduates now direct genetic resources programs in their home countries,
IBPGR has also established a training program
(taught in French) at Gembloux, Belgium, and
a training program to be taught in Spanish is
under consideration (14). Some 500 developing-
Photo
”
Board
Resources
Genetic resources conservation requires a cadre of qualified
personnel. The University of Birmingham in England has an
international postgraduate program In genetic conservation.
country scientists have benefited from IBPGRsupported courses on plant genetic resource
management and from internship programs at
international agricultural research centers. In
addition, IBPGR has helped incorporate relevant courses in universities in several developing countries (65). Despite these advances,
training in genetic resource conservation and
use still needs increased attention.
Increasing Direct Econmic Benefits
Of Wild Species
One of the most forceful arguments for the
need to maintain biological diversity has been
the potential that wild species hold to improve
the ‘quality of human life. The examples of
304 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
perennial corn and rosy periwinkle (an antiIeukemia drug) are commonly cited in the literature on this subject. For the most part, however, this rationale has been expounded by scientific, conservation, and political groups in
industrial countries, where motivations as well
as technologies to exploit genetic resources are
comparatively well-developed.
The point has been less forcefully argued or
acted on in developing countries. The reason
may be because these countries have been unable to capitalize on their biological resources;
the products and profits from them—for man y
reasons, including differences in levels of technology, research facilities, and interest—accrue
credit:
Nations/photo by S Stokes
Crocodile farm in Papua New Guinea has potential to provide
direct economic benefits and encourages protection
of biological resources.
elsewhere. Given that the greatest diversity of
potentially important organisms is located in
developing countries (e.g., centers of diversity
of crop species and moist tropical forests as
sources of medicinal products), enhancing the
incentives for developing countries is critically
important.
Various mechanisms exist to promote identification and development of biological resources in developing countries. Supporting research by developing-country scientists, such
as through the AID Program in Science and
Technology Cooperation (49), offers opportunities not only to promote development of indigenous biological resources but also to cultivate scientific expertise and supporting
Ptrofo credit:
154002, S
To reduce dependence on tea, rubber, and coconut exports,
Lanka is promoting the
of
minor export crops such as citronella.
—.
Ch. 11—Biological Diversity and Development Assistance
institutions as well. Ethnobotanical surveys and
research represent another promising avenue
for encouraging greater recognition of the importance and opportunities of maintaining biological diversity. Wildlife-based tourism and
other wildlife utilization enterprises offer further possibilities. However, these should be approached with some caution to ensure that benefits actually accrue to the country and account
for the interests of local populations (9).
Loss of agricultural genetic resources in developing countries is a pronounced concern.
Addressing it will depend on enhancing capacity in national agricultural programs and increasing awareness of the potential of germplasm to contribute to development needs.
Continued U.S. support for International Agricultural Research Centers, especially the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources,
serves an important role in this regard. Bilateral
programs through the U.S. Department of Agriculture, such as the one that currently exists
with Mexico, could also be promoted, Accounting for the unique contributions of traditional
agricultural systems will also need special attention, Ongoing research provides strong evidence on the importance and potential of these
high diversity, low input systems in addressing the particular needs and limitations of most
developing-country agriculturalists (42),
Greater support for research in investigating
CHAPTER 1
1. Aiken, S, R., and Leigh, C. H,, “On the Declining Fauna of Peninsular Malaysia in the PostColonial Period,” Arnbio 14(1):15-22, 1985.
2, Baldi, P., Spivy-Weber, F., and Chapnick, B.,
Foreign Assistance Funding Alternatives
(Washington, DC: National Audubon Society,
1986).
3 Bodo, I., “Report on the FAO/UNEP Training
Courses on Animal Genetic Resources Conservation and Management, ” Animal Genetic Resources Conservation by Management, Data
Banks, and Training (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
1984).
4. Cohn, J., “Creating a Conservation Ethic, ”
Americas, November-December 1985.
●
305
and improving indigenous agricultural systems
is seen as a high priority for development assistance. Increasing attention is also being addressed at incorporating traditional agroecosystems within biosphere reserves programs
(30).
The prospects and promises of biotechnology have prompted a few developing countries
to place a premium on developing their capacities in this field. Although biotechnology’s contributions to biological diversity maintenance
is mixed, the incentives it may provide developing countries to protect and develop their
genetic resources argues for supporting developing-country expertise. Access to technical
procedures, however, is generally restricted to
countries with well-developed capabilities. A
large number of developing countries could apply these technologies to exploit genetic resources if access to information, training, and
technology were improved. Microbiological Research Centers, otherwise known as MIRCENS
(see ch. 10), place a strong emphasis on training developing-country scientists, The recently
created International Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, established by the
United Nations Industrial Development Organization, also has as its main function the dissemination of these technologies to developing
countries.
REFERENCE$
5. Collins, M., “International Inventory and Monitoring for the Maintenance of Biological
Diversity, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.
6, Conservation Foundation, “Third World Progress Is Painfully Slow, ” Conservation Foundation Letter (Washington, DC: 1986).
7. Dasmann, R. F., “Ecological Principles for Economic Development: Ten Years Later, ” paper
presented to IUCN 16th technical meeting, Madrid, Spain, Nov. 5-14. 1984.
8. Dias, C., president, International Center for
Law in Development, New York, personal
communications, May 1986.
9. Eltringham, S. K., VViZdlife Resources and Economic Development (New York: John Wiley &
Sons, 1984).
306 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
10. Environment and EnergV StudV Institute Task
Force, “A Congressional”Agenda for Improved
Resource and Environmental Management in
the Third World: Helping Developing Countries Help Themselves, ” Washington, DC,
1985.
11 Fahrenkrog, E., Fired Report: Study for the
Establishm-ent of an Inter-_American -Training
Center for Management and Operations Personnel of National Parks and Similar Areas
(Washington, DC: World Wildlife Fund, 1978).
In: Saunier and Meganck, 1985.
12. Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, Animal Genetic Resources
Conservation by Management, Data Banks,
and Training (Rome: FAO, 1984).
13. Goebel, M., The Nature Conservancy International, Arlington, VA, personal communications, June 1986.
14. Hawkes, J. G,, Plant Genetic Resources, CGIAR
Study Paper No. 3 (Washington, DC: World
Bank, 1985).
15. Hodges, J., “Annual Genetics Resources in the
Developing World: Goals, Strategies, Management and Current Status, ” Proceedings of
Third World Congress on Genetics Applied to
Livestock Production, Lincoln, NE, vol. 10, July
16-22, 1986,
16. Horberry, J., “Accountability of Development
Assistance Agencies: The Case of Environmental Policy,” Eco]ogy Law Quarter]y 23:817869, 1986.
17. Howard-Clinton, E. G., “The Emerging Concepts of Environmental Issues in Africa, n Environmental Management 8(3):187-190, 1984.
18 International Institute for Environment and
Development, “Environmental Planning and
Management Project, Country Environmental
Profiles, Natural Resource Assessment and
Other Reports on the State of the Environment,” Washington, DC, May 1986,
19. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Conservation for
Development Center, National Conservation
Strategies: A Framework for Sustainable Development (Gland, Switzerland: 1984).
20. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources/United Nations
Environment Programme/WorId Wildlife
Fund, World Conservation Strategy (Gland,
Switzerland: IUCN, 1980).
21. Kasten, Sen. R. W,, “Development Banks: Subsidizing Third World Pollution, ” The Washington Quarterly, summer 1986, pp. 109-114.
22, Kux, M., U.S. Agency for International Development, Rosslyn, VA, personal communications, June 1986.
23, Lausche, B., World Wildlife Fund-U. S., Washington, DC, personaI communications, June
1986,
24. Lucas, G., and Oldfield, S., “The Role of Zoos,
Botanical Gardens, and Similar Institutions in
the Maintenance of Biological Diversity,” OTA
commissioned paper, 1985.
25. Mason, L., “InternationaI Assistance Programs
of the Department of the Interior, Forest Service, and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,” U.S. Congress, House Committee on
Interior and Insular Affairs, Subcommittee on
Public Lands, Hearings, Oct. 8, 1985.
26, McPherson, M. P,, administrator of Agency for
International Development, letter to Congressman Gus Yatron, chairman, U.S. Congress,
House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Human Rights and International
Organizations, Mar. 21, 1986a.
27. McPherson, M. P., Agency for International
Development Oversight Hearing, Apr. 21,
1986, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC, 1986b,
28. Mueller-Dombois, D., Karawinata, K., and
Handley, L. L., “Conservation of Species and
Habitats: A Major Responsibility in Development Planning. ” In: Carpenter, R. (cd.), Natural Systems for Development: What Planners
Need to Know (New York: Macmillan Publish-
ing Co., 1983).
29. Namkoong, G., “Conservation of Biological
Diversity by In-situ and Ex-situ Methods,”
OTA commissioned paper, 1986.
300 Oldfield, M. L., and Alcorn, J. B,, “Conservation
of Traditional Agroecosystems: A Reevaluation,” Bioscience, March 1987.
31. Organization of American States, Final Report:
Technical Meeting on Education and Training for the Administration of National Parks,
Wildlife Reserves and Other Protected Areas,
Regional Scientific Technological, Development Program, Sept. 25-29, 1978, Merida, Venezuela, 1978. In: Saunier and Meganck, 1985.
32. Orians, G., and Kunin, W., “An Ecological Perspective on the Valuation of Biological Diversity, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.
33. Plucknett, D,, Smith, N., Williams, J. T., and
Anishetty, N. M., Gene Banks and The World’s
Food (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, forthcoming).
34. Prescott-Allen, R., “Management of In Situ
——
Gene Banks, ” Proceedings of the 24th Working Session of CNPRA, Madrid, Spain, 1984.
In: Thorsell, 1985.
Prescott-Allen, R., consultant, British Columbia, Canada, personal communications, May
1986,
36. Rambo, T., “Socioeconomic Considerations
for the In-Situ Maintenance of Biological
Diversity in Developing Countries, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.
37. Randall, A., “Human Preferences, Economics,
and Preservation of Species, ” The Preserva35.
tion of Species: The Value of Biological Diversity, B .G. Norton (cd. ) (Princeton, NJ: Prince38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
42a.
43.
ton University Press, 1986).
Raven, P., Missouri Botanical Gardens, St,
Louis, MO, personal communications, June
1986.
Rendel, J., Animal Genetic Resources Data
Banks (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1984).
Rich, B., “The Multilateral Development
Banks, Environmental Policy and the United
States, ” Eco]ogy Law Quarterly, spring 1985.
Rich, B., and Schwartzman, S., “The Role of
Development Assistance in Maintaining Biological Diversity In-Situ in Developing Countries, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985,
Richards, P., Indigenous Agricultural Revolution (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1985).
Saunier, R., and Meganck, R., “Compatibility
of Development and the In-Situ Maintenance
of Biological Diversity in Developing Countries, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1985.
Talbot, L., “Helping Developing Countries
Help Themselves: Toward a Congressional
Agenda for Improved Resource and Environmental Management in the Third World, ”
working paper (Washington, DC: World Re-
sources Institute, 1985).
44 Thorsell, J., “The Role of Protected Areas in
Maintaining Biological Diversity in Tropical
Developing Countries, ” OTA commissioned
paper, 1985,
45, Thrupp, A,, “The Peasant View of Conservation, ” Ceres 14(4):31-34, 1981.
46. United Nations Environment Programme, Projet de Programme d’Action pour l’Education
et la Formation en Matiere d’Environnement
en Afrique, UN EP/W. G. 87/2., 1983. In: Sau-
nier and Meganck, 1985.
47. United Nations Environment Programme, Red
Regional de Instituciones para la Formaci6n
Ambiental, Informe de Actividades de 1982-
Ch. 1 l—Biological Diversity and Development Assistance
●
307
1983 y Sugerencias de Programaci6n para
1984, UNEP/I.G, 47/4, 1984. In: Saunier and
Meganck, 1985.
48 United Nations Environment Programme, Final Report, Fourth Inter-Governmental Regional Meeting on the Environment in Latin
America and the Caribbean, Cancb, Mexico,
UN EP/l. G. 57/8, 1985. In: Saunier and
Meganck, 1985.
49. U.S. Agency for International Development,
The Office of the Science Advisor, Development Through Innovative Research (Washington, DC: 1985).
50. U.S. Agency for International Development,
Congressional Presentation Fiscal Year 1987:
Main Volume (Washington, DC: 1986).
51% U.S. Agency for International Development,
“Draft AID Action Plan on Conserving Biological Diversity in Developing Countries, ” prepared by Bureau of Science and Technology,
Office of Forestry, Environment, and Natural
Resources, Washington, DC, January 1986.
52< U.S. Agency for International Development,
“Progress in Conserving Biological Diversity
in Developing Countries FY1985, ” Washington, DC, February 1986.
53. U.S. Congress, Congressional Research Service, “U.S. Foreign Assistance in an Era of
Declining Resources: Issues for Congress in
1986, ” prepared by L,Q. Newels, CRS Rpt. No.
86-95F, Washington, DC, 1986.
54. U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on
Human Rights and International Organizations, U.S. Policy on Biological Diversity (hearings on June 6, 1985) (Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1985).
55. U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Environmental Impact of Multilateral Development
Bank-Funded Projects: Hearing before the Sub-
committee on International Development Institutions and Finance of the House Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs,
98th Cong., 1st sess,, 1983.
56. U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Draft
Recommendations on the Multilateral Development Banks and the Environment: Hearing
before the Subcommittee on International Development Institutions and Finance of the
House Committee on Banking, Finance, and
Urban Affairs, 98th Cong., Zd sess., 1984.
57. U.S. Congress, House of Representatives,
Tropical Forest Development Projects—Status
of En vironmen tal and Amicultural Research:
308 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
Hearing before the Subcommittee on Natural
Resources, Agriculture Research and Environment of the House Committee on Science and
Technology, 98th Cong., 2d sess., 1984.
58. U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations, Hearings: Issues on Biological
Diversity and Tropical Deforestation, Mar. 19,
1986 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1986).
59, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Grassroots Conservation of Biological
Diversity in the United States—Background Paper #1, OTA-13P-F-38 (Washington, DC: U.S.
gress on National Parks, Bali, Indonesia, Oct.
11-22, 1982, J.A. McNeely and K.R. Miller (eds.)
(Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution
Press, 1984),
64. Western, D., “Conservation-Based Rural Development, ” Sustaining Tomorrow: A Strategy
for World Conservation and Development, F.R.
60,
66,
Government Printing Office, February 1986).
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Continuing the Commitment: A Special
Report on the Sahel, OTA-F-308 [Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, August
Thibodeau and H.H. Field (eds.) (Hanover, NH:
University Press of New England, 1984).
65. Williams, J. T,, “A Decade of Crop Genetic Resources Research, ” Crop Genetic Resources:
67,
1986).
61, U.S. Department
of State, Conserving International Wildlife Resources: The United States
Response (Washington, DC: U.S. Government
68.
Printing Office, 1984),
62, U.S. Interagency Task Force, U.S. Strategy on
the Conservation of Biological Diversity: An
Interagency Task Force Report to Congress
(Washington, DC: Agency for International Development, 1985).
63, Western, D., “Amboseli National Park: Human
Values and the Conservation of a Savanna Ecosystem,” National Parks, Conservation, and
Deve]oDment. Droceedines of the World Con-
69,
70.
Conservation and Evaluation, J.H.W. Holden
and J.T. Williams (eds.) (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1984).
Winterbottom, R., International Institute for
Environment and Development, Washington,
DC, personal communications, June 1986.
World Resources Institute, Recommendations
for a United States Strategy To Conserve Biological Diversity in Developing Countries
(Washington, DC: 1984).
World Wildlife Fund, Strategy for Training in
Natural Resources and Environment (Washington, DC: 1980).
World Wildlife Fund-U. S., Annual Report 1984
[Washington, DC: WWF, 1984),
Yatron, G., chairman, U.S. Congress, House
Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee
on Human Rights and International Organizations, letter to M. Peter McPherson, administrator, Agency for International Development,
lan. 29. 1986.
Appendixes
Appendix A
Glossary of Acronyms
AAZPA
—American Association of Zoological
Parks and Aquariums
AID
—U.S. Agency for International Development
AIDS
—acquired immune deficiency syndrome
AMBC
—American Minor Breeds Conservancy
APHIS
—Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (USDA)
ARS
–Agricultural Research Service (USDA)
ATCC
—American Type Culture Collection
BGCCB
—Botanical Gardens Conservation Coordinating Body
CACS
–Crop Advisory Committees (USDA]
CAMCORE—The Central America and Mexico
Coniferous Resources Cooperative
—Council for Agricultural Science and
CAST
Technology
–Conservation Data Centers (TNCI)
CDCs
—Country Development Strategy
CDSS
Statements
—Council for Environmental Quality
CEQ
—Consultative Group on International
CGIAR
Agricultural Research
—Centro International de Agricultural
CIAT
Tropical (CGIAR, Colombia)
—Committee of International DevelopCIDIE
ment Institutions on the Environment
CIMMYT —Centro International de Mejoramiento
de Maiz y Trigo (CGIAR, Mexico)
—Centro International de la Papa
CIP
(CGIAR, Peru)
—Convention on International Trade in
CITES
Endangered Species of Wild Flora
and Fauna
—Conservation Monitoring Center
CMC
(IUCN)
—Center for Plant Conservation
CPC
CRGO
—Competitive Research Grants Office
(USDA)
CSRS
—Cooperative State Research Service
(USDA)
DNA
–deoxyribonucleic acid
DOE
—U.S. Department of Energy
ECG
–Ecosystem Conservation Group (FAO,
UNEP, UNESCO, and IUCN)
ELISA
—enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay
EPA
—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESF
–Economic Support Funds (AID)
FAA
FAO
—Foreign Assistance Act
—Food and Agriculture Organisation
(UN.)
FNR
—Forestry, Natural Resources, and the
Environment Office (AID)
FWS
—Fish and Wildlife Service (Department of the Interior)
FWS/ESO —Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered
Species Office (Department of the Interior)
GAO
–General Accounting Office (U.S.
Congress)
GEMS
–Global Environment Monitoring System (UNEP)
GIS
—Geographic Information Systems
GRID
—Global Resources Information Database (GEMS, UNEP)
GRIN
—Germplasm Resources Information
Network (NPGS,USDA)
HPLC
—high-performance liquid chromatography
IARCs
—International Agricultural Research
Centers
IBPGR
—International Board for Plant Genetic
Resources
ICBP
—International Council for Bird Preservation
IITA
—International Institute of Tropical
Agriculture (CGIAR, Nigeria)
IMS
—Institute of Museum Services
IPPC
—International Plant Protection Convention
IRDP
—Integrated Regional Development
Planning (OAS)
IRRI
—International Rice Research Institute
(CGIAR, Philippines)
ISIS
—International Species Inventory System
IUCN
—International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
IUPOV
—International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants
MAB
—Man in the Biosphere Program
(UNESCO)
MARC
–Meat Animal Research Center [USDA]
MDBs
—Multilateral Development Banks
MI RCENS —Microbiological Resource Centers
NAS
—National Academy of Sciences
NCS
—National Conservation Strategy
311
312 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
NGO
NMFS
NMR
NOAA
NPGS
NPS
NRRL
NSF
NSSL
OAS
OECD
OTA
PASA
PBR
PD
PNV
—nongovernmental organization
—National Marine Fisheries Service
(Department of Commerce)
—nuclear magnetic resonance
—National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (Department of
Commerce)
—National Plant Germplasm System
(USDA)
—National Park Service (Department of
the Interior)
—Northern Regional Research Laboratory (USDA)
—National Science Foundation
—National Seed Storage Laboratory
(NPGS, USDA)
—Organization of American States
—Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
—Office of Technology Assessment
(U.S. Congress)
—Participating Agency Service
Agreement
—plant breeders’ rights
–Policy Determination (USAID)
—potential natural vegetation
—Plant Variety Protection Act
—Research and Development
—restriction fragment length polymorphisms
—Research Natural Area
RNA
—ribonucleic acid
RNA
—Regional Plant Introduction Station
RPIS
(USDA)
—Resource Services Support Agreements
RSSA
—Society of American Foresters
SAF
—Species Conservation Monitoring Unit
SCMU
(IUCN)
–Soil Conservation Service (USDA)
SCS
—Surface Mining Control and ReclaSMCRA
mation Act
–Species Survival Plans (AAZPA)
SSPS
—The Nature Conservancy
TNC
—The Nature Conservancy International
TNCI
—United Nations
UN
—United Nations Environment
UNEP
Programme
UNESCO —United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization
—U.S. Department of Agriculture
USDA
—World Conservation Strategy
Wcs
PVPA
R&D
RFLP
Appendix B
Glossary of Terms
Artificial insemination: A breeding technique,
commonly used in domestic animals, in which
semen is introduced into the female reproductive tract by artificial means.
Biochemical analysis: The analysis of proteins or
DNA using various techniques, including electrophoretic testing and restriction fragment length
polymorphism (RFLP) analysis. These techniques
are useful methods for assessing plant diversity
and have also been used to identify many strains
of micro-organisms.
Biogeography: A branch of geography that deals
with the geographical distribution of animals and
plants.
Biological diversity: The variety and variability
among living organisms and the ecological complexes in which they occur.
Biologically unique species: A species that is the
only representative of an entire genus or family,
Biosphere reserves: Established under UNESCO’s
Man in the Biosphere (MAB) Program, biosphere
reserves are a series of protected areas linked
through a global network, intended to demonstrate the relationship between conservation and
development,
Biota: The living organisms of a region.
Biotechnology: Techniques that use living organisms or substances from organisms to make or
modify a product, The most recent advances in
biotechnology involve the use of recombinant
DNA techniques and other sophisticated tools to
harness and manipulate genetic materials.
Breed: A group of animals or plants related by descent from common ancestors and visibly similar in most characteristics. Taxonomically, a species can have numerous breeds.
Breeding line: Genetic lines of particular significance to plant or animal breeders that provide
the basis for modern varieties,
Buffer zones: Areas on the edge of protected areas
that have land use controls and allow only activities compatible with protection of the core area,
such as research, environmental education, recreation, and tourism.
Captive breeding: The propagation or preservation
of animals outside their natural habitat, involving control by humans of the animals chosen to
constitute a population and of mating choices
within that population.
Centers of diversity: The regions where most of
the major crop species were originally domesticated and developed. These regions may coincide with centers of origin.
Chromatography: A chemical analysis technique
whereby an extract of compounds is separated
by allowing it to migrate over or through an
adsorbent (such as clay or paper) so that the compounds are distinguished as separate layers.
Clonal propagation: The multiplication of an organism by asexual means such that all progeny are
genetically identical. In plants, it is commonly
achieved through use of cuttings or in vitro culture. For animals, embryo splitting is a method
of clonal propagation.
Community: A group of ecologically related populations of various species of organisms occurring
in a particular place and time.
Critical habitats: A technical classification of areas
in the United States that refers to habitats essential for the conservation of endangered or threatened species. The term may be used to designate
portions of habitat areas, the entire area, or even
areas outside the current range of the species.
Cryogenic storage: The preservation of seeds, semen, embryos, or micro-organisms at extremely
low temperatures, below – 130 0 C. At these temperatures, water is absent, molecular kinetic
energy is low, diffusion is virtually nil, and storage potential is expected to be extremely long.
Cryopreservation: See cryogenic storage.
Cultivar: International term denoting certain cultivated plants that are clearly distinguishable
from others by one or more characteristics and
that when reproduced retain their distinguishing characteristics, In the United States, “variety” is considered to be synonymous with cultivar (derived from “cultivated variety”).
Cutting: A plant piece (stem, leaf, or root) removed
from a parent plant that is capable of developing
into a new plant.
Cycad: Any of an order of gymnosperm of the family cycadaceae. Cycads are tropical plants that
resemble palms but reproduce by means of spermatozoids.
Database: An organized collection of data that can
be used for analysis.
DNA: Deoxyribonucleic acid. The nucleic acid in
chromosomes that codes for genetic information.
313
314 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
The molecule is double stranded, with an external “backbone” formed by a chain of alternating
phosphate and sugar (deoxyribose) units and an
internal ladder-like structure formed by nucleotide base-pairs held together by hydrogen bonds.
Domestication: The adaptation of an animal or
plant to life in intimate association with and to
the advantage of man.
Ecology: A branch of science concerned with the
interrelationship of organisms and their environment.
Ecosystem: An ecological community together with
its physical environment, considered as a unit.
Ecosystem diversity: The variety of ecosystems that
occurs within a larger landscape, ranging from
biome (the largest ecological unit) to microhabitat.
Electrophoresis: Application of an electric field to
a mixture of charged particles in a solution for
the purpose of separating (e. g., mixture of proteins) as they migrate through a porous supporting medium of filter paper, cellulose acetate, or
gel.
Embryo transfer: An animal breeding technique
in which viable and healthy embryos are artificially transferred to recipient animals for normal gestation and delivery.
Endangered species: A technical definition used
for classification in the United States referring
to a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The
International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) definition,
used outside the United States, defines species
as endangered if the factors causing their vulnerability or decline continue to operate.
Endemism: The occurrence of a species in a particular locality or region.
Equilibrium theory: A theory of island biogeography maintaining that greater numbers of species
are found on larger islands because the populations on smaller islands are more vulnerable to
extinction. This theory can also be applied to terrestrial analogs such as forest patches in agricultural or suburban areas or nature reserves where
it has become known as “insular ecology. ”
Exotic species: An organism that exists in the free
state in an area but is not native to that area. Also
refers to animals from outside the country in
which they are held in captive or free-ranging
populations.
Ex-situ: Pertaining to study or maintenance of an
organism or groups of organisms away from the
place where they naturally occur. Commonly
associated with collections of plants and animals
in storage facilities, botanic gardens, or zoos.
Extinct species: As defined by the IUCN, extinct
taxa are species or other taxa that are no longer
known to exist in the wild after repeated search
of their type of locality and other locations where
they were known or likely to have occurred.
Extinction: Disappearance of a taxonomic group
of organisms from existence in all regions.
Fauna: Organisms of the animal kingdom.
Feral: A domesticated species that has adapted to
existence in the wild state but remains distinct
from other wild species. Examples are the wild
horses and burros of the West and the wild goats
and pigs of Hawaii.
Flora: Organisms of the plant kingdom.
Gamete: The sperm or unfertilized egg of animals
that transmit the parental genetic information to
offspring. In plants, functionally equivalent structures are found in pollen and ovules.
Gene: A chemical unit of hereditary information
that can be passed from one generation to another.
Gene-pool: The collection of genes in an interbreeding population.
Genetic diversity: The variety of genes within a particular species, variety, or breed.
Genetic drift: A cumulative process involving the
chance loss of some genes and the disproportionate replication of others over successive generations in a small population, so that the frequencies of genes in the population is altered. The
process can lead to a population that differs genetically and in appearance from the original
population.
Genotype: The genetic constitution of an organism,
as distinguished from its physical appearance.
Genus: A category of biological classification ranking between the family and the species, comprising structurally or phylogenetically related species or an isolated species exhibiting unusual
differentiation.
Germplasm: Imprecise term generally used to refer to the genetic information of an organism or
group of organisms.
Grow-out (growing-out): The process of growing
a plant for the purpose of producing fresh viable
seed to evaluate its varietal characteristics.
Habitat: The place or type of site where an organism naturally occurs.
Hybrid: An offspring of a cross between two genetically unlike individuals,
Inbreeding: Mating of close relatives resulting in
increased genetic uniformity in the offspring.
App. B—Glossary of Terms
—
In-situ: Maintenance or study of organisms within
an organism’s native environment.
gene banks: Protected areas designated specifically to protect genetic variability of particular species.
Interspecies: Between different species.
Intrinsic value: The value of creatures and plants
independent of human recognition and estimation of their worth,
Inventory: onsite collection of data on natural resources and their properties.
In-situ
In vitro: (Literally “in glass”). The growing of cells,
tissues, or organs in plastic vessels under sterile
conditions on an artificially prepared medium.
Isoenzyme (Isozyne): The protein product of an individual gene and one of a group of such products with differing chemical structures but similar enzymatic function.
Landrace: Primitive or antique varieties usually
associated with traditional agriculture. Often
highly adapted to local conditions.
Living collections: A management system involving the use of off site methods such as zoological
parks, botanic gardens, arboretums, and captive
breeding programs to protect and maintain biological diversity in plants, animals, and microorganisms.
Micro-organisms: In practice, a diverse classification of all those organisms not classed as plants
or animals, usually minute microscopic or submicroscopic and found in nearly all environments, Examples are bacteria, cyanobacteria
(blue-green algae), mycoplasma, protozoa, fungi
(including yeasts), and viruses.
Minor breed: A livestock breed not generally found
in commercial production.
Modeling: The use of mathematical and computerbased simulations as a planning technique in the
development of protected areas.
Morphology: A branch of biology that deals with
form and structure of organisms.
Multiple use: An onsite management strategy that
encourages an optimum mix of several uses on
a parcel of land or water or by creating a mosaic
of land or water parcels, each with a designated
use within a larger geographic area.
Native: A plant or animal indigenous to a particular locality.
Offsite: Propagation and preservation of plant, animal, and micro-organism species outside their
natural habitat.
Onsite: Preservation of species in their natural environment.
315
.
Open-pollinated: Plants that are pollinated by physical or biological agents (e.g., wind, insects) and
without human intervention or control.
Orthodox seeds: Seeds that are able to withstand
the reductions in moisture and temperature necessary for long-term storage and remain viable.
Pathogen: A specific causative agent of disease.
Phenotype: The observable appearance of an organism, as determined by environmental and genetic
influences (in contrast to genotype).
Phytochemical: Chemicals found naturally in
plants.
Population: A group consisting of individuals of
one species that are found in a distinct portion
of the species range and that interbreed with
some regularity and therefore have a common
set of genetic characteristics.
Predator: An animal that obtains its food primarily by killing and consuming other animals.
Protected areas: Areas usually established by official acts designating that the uses of these particular sites will be restricted to those compatible with natural ecological conditions, in order
to conserve ecosystem diversity and to protect
and study species or areas of special cultural or
biological significance.
Provinciality effect: Increased diversity of species
because of geographical isolation.
Recalcitrant seeds: Seeds that cannot survive the
reductions in moisture content or lowering of
temperature necessary for long-term storage.
Recombinant DNA technology: Techniques involving modifications of an organism by incorporation of DNA fragments from other organisms
using molecular biology techniques.
Restoration: The re-creation of entire communities
of organisms closely modeled on communities
that occur naturally. It is closely linked to reclamation.
Riparian: Related to, living, or located on the bank
of a natural watercourse, usually a river, sometimes a lake or tidewater.
Serological testing: Immunologic testing of blood
serum for the presence of infectious foreign disease agents.
Somaclonal variations: Structural, physiological,
or biochemical changes in a tissue, organ, or
plant that arise during the process of in vitro
culture.
Species: A taxonomic category ranking immediately below genus and including closely related,
morphologically similar individuals that actually
or potentially interbreed.
316 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
Species diversity: The number and variety of species found in a given area in a region.
Species richness: Areas with many species, especially the equatorial regions.
Spectroscopy: Any of several methods of chemical
analysis that identify or classify compounds
based on examination of their spectral properties.
Stochastic: Models, processes, or procedures that
are based on elements of chance or probability.
Subspecies: A distinct form or race of a species.
Taxon: A taxonomic group or entity (pi. taxa).
Taxonomy: A hierarchical system of classification
of organisms that reflects the totality of similarities and differences.
Threatened species: A U.S. technical classification
referring to a species that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future, through-
out all or a significant portion of its range. These
species are defined as vulnerable taxa outside the
United States by the IUCN.
Tissue culture: A technique in which portions of
a plant or animal are grown on an artificial culture medium in an organized (e.g., as plantlets)
or unorganized (e. g., as callus) state. (See also in
vitro culture.)
Variety: See cultivar.
Wild relative: Plant species that are taxonomically
related to crop species and serve as potential
sources for genes in breeding of new varieties
of those crops.
Wild species: Organisms captive or living in the
wild that have not been subject to breeding to
alter them from their native state.
Wildlife: Living, nondomesticated animals.
Appendix C
Participants of Technical Workgroup
Five technical workgroups comprised of preeminent biological, physical, and social scientists from
the public and private sectors provided input and reviewed much of the technical information for this
study. OTA greatly appreciates the time and effort of each member of these workgroups.
Gardner M. Brown, Jr.
Department of Economics
University of Washington
Seattle, WA
Margery L. Oldfield
Department of Zoology
University of Texas
Austin, TX
Malcolm McPherson
Harvard Institute for International Development
Cambridge, MA
Holmes Rolston, 111
Department of Philosophy
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO
Robert Hanneman
Department of Horticulture
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI
Jack Kloppenburg
Department of Rural Sociology
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI
Thomas Orton
DNA Plant Technology Corp.
Watsonville, CA
Jake Halliday
Battelle-Kettering Research Lab
Yellow Springs, OH
Robert Stevenson
American Type Culture Collection
Rockville, MD
Gary Nabhan
Desert Botanical Garden
Phoenix, AZ
Betsy Dresser
Director of Research
Cincinnati Wildlife Research Federation
Cincinnati, OH
Warren Foote
International Sheep and Goat Institute
Utah State University
Logan, UT
Keith Gregory
USDA/ARS
U.S. Meat Animal Research Center
Clay Center, NE
Ulysses Seal
VA Medical Center
Minneapolis, MN
David Netter
Department of Animal Science
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA
Dale Schwindaman
USDA/APHIS
Veterinary Services
Hyattsville, MD
377
318 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
Robert Jenkins
The Nature Conservancy
ArIington, VA
Hal Salwasser
US Forest Service
Washington, DC
Bruce Jones
USDI/FWS
Office of Endangered Species
Arlington, VA
Dan TarIock
Chicago Kent College of Law
Chicago, IL
Orie Loucks
NOAA/Marine Sanctuaries
Holcomb Research Institute
Butler University
Indianapolis, IN
Washington, DC
NATURAL
Nancy Foster
ECOSYSTEMS- INTERNATIONAL
Raymond Dasmann
Department of Environmental Studies
University of California
Santa Cruz, CA
Barbara Lausche
World Wildlife Fund/Conservation Foundation
Washington, DC
Gene Namkoong
Department of Genetics
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC
Kathy Parker
Office of Technology Assessment
Washington, DC
Daniel Simberloff
Department of Zoology
Florida State University
Tallahassee, FL
——.——
Appendix D
Grassroots Workshop Participants
George Fell
Natural Lands Institute
Rockford, IL
Edward Schmitt
Brookfield Zoo
Brookfield, IL
Elizabeth Henson
American Minor Breeds Conservancy
Pittsboro, NC
Jonathan A. Shaw
Bok Tower Gardens
Lake Wales, FL
Hans Neuhauser
The Georgia Conservancy, Inc.
Savannah, GA
Kent Wheally
Seed Savers Exchange
Decorah, IA
319
Appendix E
Commissioned Papers and Authors
This report was possible because of the valuable information and analyses contained in the background
reports commissioned by OTA. These papers were reviewed and critiqued by the advisory panel, workgroups, and outside reviewers. The papers are available in a separate six-part volume through the National
Technical Information Service, l
VALUES
Papers
Author(s)
An Economic Perspective of the Valuation of
Biological Diversity
Values and Biological Diversity
Alan Randall
University of Kentucky
Bryan G, Norton
New College of the University of South Florida
Gordon Orians and William Kunin
University of Washington
Lawrence A. Riggs
Genrec
Malcolm F. McPherson
Harvard Institute for International Development
An Ecological Perspective on the Valuation of
Biological Diversity
Impact of Changing Technologies on the
Valuation of Genetic Resources (Ist draft only)
Critical Assessment of the Value of and
Concern for the Maintenance of Biological
Diversity
Status and Trends of Wild Plants
Status and Trends of Agricultural Crop Species
Diversity and Distribution of Wild Plants
New Technologies and the Enhancement of
Plant Germ Plasm Diversity
Plant Germplasm Storage Technologies
Technologies To Evaluate and Characterize
Plant Germplasm
Assessment of Plant Quarantine Practices
Assessment of Market Institutional Factors
Affecting the Plant Breeding System
Historical Analysis of Genetic Resources
Valuation
Technologies To Maintain Microbial Diversity
Hugh Synge
Conservation Monitoring Center
Christine Prescott-Allen
PADATA, Inc.
Marshall Crosby and Peter H. Raven
Missouri Botanical Garden
Tom J. Orton
DNA Plant Technology Corp.
Leigh Towill, Eric E, Roos,
and Phillip C. Stanwood
National Seed Storage Laboratory
Norm F. Weeden and David A. Young
Cornell University
Robert P. Kahn
USDA-APHIS-PPQ
Frederick A. Bliss
University of Wisconsin
Jean Pierre Ber]an-University Daix Marsaille
Richard Lowentin-Harvard University
Jake Halliday and Dwight D. Baker
Battelle-Kettering
IThe National Technical information Service, 5285 Port Royal Rd., ATTN: Sales Department, Springfield VA 22161 (703) 487-4650.
320
App. E—Commissioned Papers and Authors . 321
Status and Trends of Wild Animal Diversity
Status and Trends of Domesticated Animals
Technologies To Maintain Animal Germplasm
(draft form)
Concepts and Strategies To Maintain Domestic
and Wild Animal Germplasm
Management of Animal Disease Agents and
Vectors Potentially Hazardous for Animal
Germplasm Resources
Constraints to International Exchange of
Animal Germplasm
Status and Trends of U.S. Natural Ecosystems
Geographic Information Systems As A Tool To
Assist in the Preservation of Biological
Diversity
Planning and Management Techniques for
NTatural Systems
A Science of Refuge Design and Management
Assessment of Application of Species Viability
Theories
Diversity of Marine/Coastal Ecosystems
Federal Laws and Policies Pertaining to the
Maintenance of Biological Diversity on
Federal and Private Lands
Mandates to Federal Agencies To Conduct
Biological Inventories
Ecological Restoration As A Strategy for
Conserving Biological Diversity
Status and Trends of Natural Ecosystems
Worldwide
International Inventory and Monitoring for the
Maintenance of Biological Diversity
The Role of protected Areas in Maintaining
Biological Diversity in Tropical Developing
Countries
Nate Flesness
ISIS—Minnesota Zoo
Hank A. Fitzhugh, WiIl Getz, and F.H. Baker
Winrock International
Betsy Dresser —Cincinatti Wildlife Federation
Stan Liebo—Real Vista International
David R. Notter—Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Thorn J. Foose—Minneapolis Zoo
Werner P. Heuschele
San Diego Zoo
William M. Moulton
Consultant
David Crumpacker
University of Colorado
Duane Marble
SUNY–Buffalo
Herman H. Shugart
University of Virginia
Daniel Simberloff
Florida State University
Mark L. Shaffer
U.S. Agency for International Development
Maurice P. Lynch and Carleton Ray
Coastal Environment Associates, Inc,
Michael Bean
Environmental Defense Fund
Lynn Corn
Congressional Research Service
Bill Jordan—University of Wisconsin Arboretum
Edith Allen—Utah State University
Rob Peters—WWF/Conservation Foundation
Jeremy Harrison
Conservation Monitoring Center
N, Mark Collins
Conservation Monitoring Center
James W. Thorsell
IUCN
322 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
Role of Traditional Agriculture in Preserving
Biological Diversity
Compatibility of Development and the In-Situ
Maintenance of Biological Diversity in
Developing Countries
The Role of Development Assistance in
Maintaining Biological Diversity In-Situ in
Developing Countries
Socioeconomic Considerations for the In-Situ
Maintenance of Biological Diversity in
Developing Countries
Conservation of Biological Diversity by In-Situ
and Ex-Situ Methods
International Institutional/Legal Frameworks for
Ex-Situ Conservation of Biological Diversity
International Laws and Associated Programs
for In-Situ Conservation of Wild Species
International Laws and Associated Programs
for Conservation of Biological Diversity—
Joint Options for Congress
Living Collections (Plants and Animals)
Technologies to Maintain Tree Germplasm
Diversity
Causes of Loss of Biological Diversity
Gene Wilken
Colorado State University
Richard Saunier and Richard Meganck
Organization of American States
Bruce Rich and Stephen Schwartzman
Environmental Defense Fund
Terry Rambo
East-West Center
Gene Namkoong
North Carolina State University
John Barton
International Technology Development
Barbara Lausche
World Wildlife Fund/Conservation Foundation
Barton/Lausche
Grenville Lucas and S. Oldfield
Kew Gardens
Frank T. Bonner
US Forest Service
Norman Myers
Consultant
GRASSROOTS
Role of Grassroots Activities in the Maintenance
of Biological Diversity: Living Plants Collection
of North American Genetic Resources
Gary Nabhan and Kevin Dahl
Native Seeds Search
Report on Grass Roots Genetic Conservation
Efforts
An Assessment of the Conservation of Animal
Genetic Diversity at the Grassroots level
Cary Fowler
Grassroots Groups Concerned with In-Situ
Preservation of Biological Diversity in the U.S.
Rural Advancement Fund
Elizabeth Henson
American Minor Breeds Conservancy
Elliott A. Norse
Ecological Society of America
Index
Index
Action Plan on Conservin,g Biological Diversity’ in
Developing Countries, 29, 290-291
Africa, 2.5, 125, 302
agricultural development in, 122
biological diversity in, 39, 41, 49
diversity loss in, 75, 79
NGOs in, 14
threatened species in, 75
African Development Bank, 294
Agency for International Development, U.S. (AID],
27, 243-244
Action Plan on Conserving Biological Diversity in
Developing Countries, 29, 290-291
Biden-Pell grants’ use by, 15
biological diversity funding for, 27, 28-29, 31-32
breed resource assessment by, 160
Bureau of Program and Policy Coordination, 29,
292
Bureau of Science and Technology, 29, 293
development assistance and, 289-294, 297, 298, 302,
304, 290
environmental expertise in, 29-31, 293-294
natural resource assessments development by, 300
Office of Forestry, Natural Resources, and the Environment of, 292
preservation approach to conservation and, 122,
129
resource degradation observations by, 67-68
Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, 222, 233
Agricultural Research Service (ARS), 222, 233, 235,
242
budget of, 238
funding by, 16, 195, 196, 236
germplasm conservation by, 19
interpretation of Research and Marketing Act by,
10-11
Plant Protection and Quarantine facilities of, 177
Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act
of 1954, proposed amending of, 31-32
Agriculture
breeding, 52-53, 138-139, 144, 149-156, 229, 156
diversity loss caused by, 5, 66, 75-77, 78-79, 82-83,
94
diversity loss’ effect on, 4, 67, 76-78, 94
diversity maintenance’s value to, 4, 37, 47-48, 49-53
economics of biological diversity to, 49-50, 76
genetic diversity for, 121-122, 159-161, 305
micro-organisms’ use in, 206
offsite maintenance progams for, 169-171, 186,
232-241, 174
preservation approach to conservation in, 123
research for, 187, 192-195, 196, 305
agroecosystems, 67, 79
maintaining, 90, 94
Alaska, 46, 47
Amboseli game reserve (Kenya), 297
American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums (AAZPA], 241, 274
N()’[’}1 f)dge numtwrs
dpi)f,drl IIH
I
American Minor Breeds Conservanc\r (Ahl13C), 143,
239
American Type Culture Collection (ATCC), 210, 211,
244
Angola, 80
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (A PHI S),
146, 147, 161, 196, 244-245
Antarctica, 117, 172
Arctic, 46, 50
Argentina
personnel training in, 302
seed storage in, 172
Arizona, 46
agricultural diversity in, 122
diversity loss in, 66, 67
protected area in, 115
Army Corps of Engineers, U. S., 232
wetlands value estimate by, 5, 40-41
Arnold Arboretum (Harvard University), 173, 184,
237
artificial insemination (A. I.), 152
organizations, 240
Asia, 25, 47, 80
agricultural breeding in, 53, 160
domestic animal monitoring in, 143
quarantine facilities in, 147
Asian Development Bank, 24
development assistance funding by, 294-295
Assessing Biological Diversiy in the United States:
Data Considerations, 127
Association Latinoamericana de Production Animal
(Venezuela), 143, 301
Audubon Society, 119
Australia, 74, 125
azonal ecosystems, 103, 111
Bangladesh, 74
Battelle-Kettering Laboratory (Ohio), 209, 244
Belgium, 303
Biden-Pell matching grants, 15
biological resources, components of diveristy in, 38
biosphere reserves, cluster concept for, 225-226, 118
biotechnology, 4
in developing countries, 305
micro-organisms’ use in, 209, 206
plant improvement through, 191-194, 196
seed collection and, 185-187
Birmingham, University of (UK], 303
Black Mesa (Arizona), 46
Bolivia, 301
Bonn Convention, 256
Borlaug, Norman, 292
Botanical Gardens Conservation Coordinating 130dy
(BGCCB), 173, 273
Botanic Garden Conservation Strategy, 273
Botswana, 50, 51, 54
Brazil
conservation education in, 297
n Ifall[ \ arc r(~frrri n~ to i nformdt it)]) mcnt ](Irl(Yl ]11 thf, boke~
325
326 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
deforestation in, 75, 106
management technology in, 94
threatened species list in, 71
breeding
funding technologies for, 158, 159, 160-162, 235,
236
programs for animal diversity, 52-53, 138-139, 144,
149-156, 229, 156
programs for plants, 191-194, 235, 236, 192
species criteria for, 241
breeds, report’s definition of, 139
Brookfield Zoo (Chicago), 129
Budapest Treaty, 262
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. (BLM)
onsite maintenance and, 115, 117-118, 128, 227
onsite restoration by, 231
Resource Management Plan of, 114
Bureau of Program and Policy Coordination, 29, 292
Bureau of Science and Technology, 293
Burma, 47
California, 47
agricultural breeding in, 53
biological diversity in, 49, 50
diversity loss in, 66, 67
threatened species in, 70
California at Davis, University of, 45, 175, 236
California Desert Conservation Area, 117-118
California Gene Resources Conservation Program,
236
California, University of, 44
Canada, 12, 47
diversity loss in, 5, 81
diversity management strategy in, 117
onsite management plans in, 115
Carolina Bird Club, 231
Cary Arboretum (New York), 232
Center for Environmental Education, 14
Center for Plant Conservation (CPC), 173, 184
data collection by, 238
NSSI. and, 19
offsite maintenance by, 196
wild plant maintenance by, 237-238
Center for Restoration Ecology (Wisconsin), 232
Central African Republic, 80
Central America, 25
Central America and Mexico Coniferous Resources
Cooperative (CAMCORE), 175, 184
Centro Agronomic Tropical de Investigaciones y Ensenanza (Costa Rica), 122, 297, 302
Centro International de Mejoramiento de Ma{z y
Trigo (CIMMYT), 122
Centro International de la Papa (CIP), 184, 186, 187,
188
Chad, 80
Charles River (Massachusetts), 5, 40-41
Chesapeake Bay, 64, 71
Chile, 71
China, 125
diversity loss in, 63-64, 156
College of African Wildlife Management (Tanzania),
302
Colombia, 75
conservation education in, 297
plant collection in, 186
Colorado, 46
Commission on Ecology, 122-23
Committee on International Development Institutions
on the Environment (CIDIE), 24, 295, 296
Commission on Plant Genetic Resources, 25, 26
Competitive Research Grants Office (CRGO), 17, 195,
196
Connecticut, University of, 240
Conservation Biology, 129
Conservation Data Centers (CDCS)
for developing countries, 299
development assistance projects by, 293
Conservation Monitoring Center (CMC), 112, 268-69,
273
data collection by, 124, 125, 127, 293
Conservation Needs Inventory, 66
Consultative Group on International Agricultural
Research (CGIAR), 270
Consumers’ Association of Penang (Malaysia), 298
Convention Concerning the Protection of the World
Cultural and Natural Heritage, 255, 266-68
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species
of Wild Animals, 256
Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES], 22,
23, 255, 296, 286
Convention on the Law of the Sea, 256
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance
Especially as Waterfowl Habitat, 255
conventions
global, 255-56, 258
regional, 256, 258
Cooperative State Research Service (CSRS), 233, 235
Costa Rica
conservation education in, 297
ecosystem restoration in, 120
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology,
144-45
Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ), 12
Coweeta Hydrological Station, 118
crop advisory committees (CACs), 195, 235-36
cryogenic storage
for animal diversity maintenance, 139-42, 144-45,
148-49, 158-59, 274
of micro-organisms, 210-11
for plant collections, 171-73, 182-84, 187, 194-95
of seeds, 169, 171-72, 172-73
cryopreservation. See cryogenic storage
data collection
biogeographic systems of, 103, 104, 111
for breed assessment, 160
coordinating, 15, 20-22, 95-96, 126-127
for diversity maintenance, 124, 268-269, 298-299
enhancing, 19-22, 95-96
Index
—
for microbial diversity, 212-213
for onsite maintenance programs, 115, 123-127, 130
for plant collecting, 175
for plant storage technologies, 180, 189-190
for policy formation, 95-96
for population models, 108-109
for reproductive biology, 158-159
socioeconomic, 127
on threatened species, 68-75, 77-78, 83
for wild plant species, 237-238
Declaration on the Human Environment, 2,57
deforest at ion
causes of, 8 1
of developing countries, 3-5, 27-28, 67, 73-75, 80,
106
diversity loss caused by, 73-74
historically, 63-64
Department of Agriculture, [J, S. (USDA), 294, 299
Agricultural Research Servrice, 10-11, 16, 19, 177,
195, 196, 210, 222, 233, 236, 238, 242
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of,
146, 147, 161, 196, 244-245
bilateral programs and, 305
breed resource assessment by, 160
Competitive Research Grants Office, 17, 195, 196
development assistance and, 303
funding plant storage technology by, 194-195
germplasm maintenance by, 239
germp]asm quarantine and, 146, 147
germp]asm transfer and, 146, 147, 161, 162
microbial research by, 239
National Plant Germplasm System, 8
onsite restoration by, 232
plant diversity maintenance by, 191, 232, 233
plant importation and, 177, 196
RSSA between AID and, 30
Soil Conservation Service of, 121, 231, 237
Department of Commerce, 111
Department of Education, U. S., 14
Department of Energy, U.S. (DOE), 213, 118
Department of the Interior, 30, 294
Desert Fishes Council, 231
desertification, 69
developing countries, 12
agricultural breeding in, 53
biotechnology’s use in, 305
data collection for biological diversity in, 2 9 8 - 2 9 9
deforestation in, 3-5, 27-28, 67, 73-75, 80, 81, 306
diversity loss in, 27-32, 285
economic benefits of wild species in, 303-305
genetic resources of, 260-262, 305
MDBs and, 294-296
onsite technology for, 129
preservation approach to conservation in, 122
promotion of biological diversity projects in,
296-305
protected areas in, 109
U.S. state in maintaining biological diversity in,
286
N()”l’li Page numbers
a p p e a r i n g In ]t,il]( s ,ir(, referrl ng tI)
I
nf(]rnl~tlon
●
327
development
agricultural, 121-122
conservation as, 122-123, 264
effect of, on diversity maintenance systems, 78-7{],
102
insular ecology and, 106
development assistance, 31-32
diversitl maintenance and, 287-289
funding, 291-293, 294-296, 298, 302
genetic conservation and, 78
multilateral development banks and, 294-296
reports of constraints on, 69
diversity loss, 67
biological concepts involving, 65
causes of, 3-5, 63-64, 71, 73-74, 75-82, 127
through crossbreeding, 162
in domestic animals, 240-241
extent of, 3-5, 82-83
historically, 63-64, 66, 68, 75
diversity maintenance, 273-275
breed replacement for, 139
conserving, 8-22, 221-246, 253-278
esthetic and ethical Values of, 37, 46-49, 54
federal mandates affecting, 222-224
funding, 29, 31-32
improvements needed for, 245-246, 275-278
integration of economic development and, 287-289
international initiatives for, 22-26
interventions encouraging, 6-8, 89-96
linkages of management systerns for, 8-13, 18-19,
30-32, 92-96
management systems
for, 6-8, 89-96
micro-organism, 205-213
patent law and, 260-262, 261
personnel training for, 302-303
private sector’s contribution to, 16, 17, 30-31, 227,
228, 230-232, 236-238, 239-240, 245
program coordination for, 8-13, 18-19, 30-32, 89,
92-96, 115, 120, 278
promoting planning and management for, 300-302
public support for, 13, 54-55, 230, 241, 296-298
value of maintaining, 4-5, 37-54
for wild plants, 237-238
Dominican Republic, 79
Earthwatch, 268
East Germany, 113, 156
Ecole de Fauna [Cameroon), 302
economics
of biological diversity, 4-5, 8, 39-41, 48, 49, 50,
53-54
data on, 127
of diversity loss, 76, 80, 81-82
of diversity maintenance systems, 4-5, 102, 105,
111, 114
of diversity management systems, 7, 89-90, 90-91,
92
of ecosystem restoration, 120, 121
of microbial diversity, 208, 210, 211, 212, 244
n)ent]oned
In th(> I)(]\[>\
328 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
●
of offsite animal maintenance, 144
of offsite plant collection technologies, 172-173, 195
of offsite seed storage technologies, 183, 195
of onsite maintenance programs, 229, 232
of preservation conservation, 123
of U.S. development assistance, 288, 291-292
of worldwide network of protected areas, 111
ecosystem
approach for protected areas, 111-112
azonal, 103, 111
benefits from, diversity, 37, 38, 39-41, 43-44, 46,
48-49, 49-50, 53-54
diversity loss, 64-65
diversity maintenance, 3, 19, 224-228
onsite, maintenance, 89-90
restoration, 119-121
scales of, diversity, 39
status of, diversity, 66-68
Ecosystem Conservation Group (ECG), 269
Ecuador, 296
edge effect, 107
embryo transfer, 7, 15, 94, 152-155, 153
Endangered Species Act of 1973, 11, 228-229, 286,
302
coordinating onsite maintenance under, 10, 11, 112,
222
proposed amending of, 18-19
threatened species definition of, 7’o
Endangered Species Office (ESO), 68, 115, 228-229
Endangered Species Program, 11, 246
funding for, 18
habitat protection and, 228-229
endemism, 104, 112, 299
England, See United Kingdom
Environmental Education Act of 1974, 14
Environmental Law Center, 268
Environmental Liaison Center (Kenya), 298
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 71
microbial research by, 213
onsite restoration by, 232
enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (E LISA), 146-147
Ethiopia, 25, 80, 301
Europe, 151
breed resource categorization in, 160
captive breeding in, 156
diversity loss in, 79
threatened species lists in, 70
Export Administration Act, proposed amending of,
26
Federal Committee on Ecological Reserves, 226
Federal Register, 228, 229
Federal Threatened and Endangered Species List, 68,
115
Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. (FWS), 68, 228-229,
241, 294, 299, 303
data collection by, 125, 126
diversity management strategy of, 116
ecosystem diversity protection by, 227
Endangered Species Office, 68, 115, 228-229
Endangered Species Program of, 11, 18
endangered species protection and, 228-229, 230
Foreign Service Currency Program and, 293, 302
Habitat Evaluation Procedure of, 114
National Fish Hatchery of, 241
onsite maintenance technology and, 128
onsite restoration by, 232
RSSA between AID and, 30
species documentation by, 68
wetlands inventories by, 66
Florida, 50, 119-120, 129
Florida, University of, 129, 303
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 25, 67-68,
124, 256, 257, 260, 262, 263, 264, 269, 274, 278
breed resource assessment by, 160
data collection by, 299
development assistance and, 303
domestic animal breed monitoring by, 143
Food for Peace Program, 31-32
Food Security Act of 1985, 232
Ford Foundation, 270
Foreign Assistance Act of 1983 (FAA), 27, 222, 289
amendment to, 287, 289, 291, 292, 290
proposed restructuring of, 28
Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research
Act, 232
Forest Service, U. S., 117, 222, 302
database integration and, 125
development assistance and, 303
diversity management strategy by, 117, 118
ecosystem diversity protection by, 227
germplasm maintenance by, 237
onsite maintenance technology and, 115, 128
onsite restoration by, 231
Renewable Resources Evaluation of, 103
species protection by, 47
Frankia culture collection, 244
freeze drying. See lyophilization
Fresh Water Game and Fish Commission (Florida),
230
Friends of the Earth, 298
Gaines wheat, 192
Galapagos Islands, 53
General Accounting Office (GAO), 32, 233-235
genetic drift
inbreeding and, 150
preventing, 150-156
genetics
benefits of diversity in, 37-38, 41, 45, 47-48, 49,
51-54
diversity in, for agriculture, 121-122
diversity loss and, 65-66
diversity of, in protected areas, 108, 112-113
ecological-evolutionary, 105
evolution and diversity in, 41
status of diversity and, 75-78
Geographic Information Systems (GIS), 125
germplasm
collection programs, 121-122
Index
—
constraints on international exchange of, 24-26
international] transfer of, 145-147, 152, 161-162,
177-178, 244-245
storage, 7, !31, 94
Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN),
190, 191
Database Management Unit, 233, 235
Glacier National Park, 227
Global Environmental Monitoring System (GEMS),
124, 268
Global Resource Information Database (GRID), 124,
125, 127, 268
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, 23, 292
Great Smoky Mountains National Park, 118
Green Revolution, 53, 192
Guanacaste National Park (Costa Rica), 120
Guatemala
conservation education in, 297
teosinte habitat in, 122
Haiti, 79, 80
Harris Poll, 13, 55
Hawaii
biological diversity in, 44
Hawaii, University of, 243-244
H.J. Andrews Experimental Ecological Reserve, 43
Honduras, 69
conservation education in, 297
teosinte habitat in, 122
Idaho, 115
Illinois, 66
Illinois River, 41
Imperial Zoological Museum (Soviet Union), 156
India, 47
deforestation in, 74
in-situ conservation in, 113
protected areas in, 110
resource degradation in, 79, 69
threatened species lists in, 71
Indiana, 66
Indonesia, 295
industry
as constituency for diversity maintenance, 13
diversity loss’ effect on, 4
diversity maintenance importance to, 37
germplasm maintenance by, 236-238
micro-organisms’ use in, 206
in-situ genebanks, 112-113, 301
Institute of Museum Services ([MS)
diversity maintenance research by, 16-17
funding seed storage facilities by, 195
institutions
diversity maintenance by, 7-8, 94-96
linkages between, 8-13, 18-19, 30-32, 94-96, 225-226,
293-294, 297-298, 299-300
insular ecology, 105-106
Integrated Regional Development Planning (IRPD],
123
N’()’I’E:
Page numhcrs appearin g III ltall(, s arc referring to i nform~tlon
●
329
Inter-African Bureau of Animal Resources (Kenya),
143, 301
Inter-American Development Bank, 24, 294-295
Inter-American Foundation, 297
International Agricultural Research Centers (IA RCS),
191, 270, 305
International Board for Animal Genetic Resources
(IBAGR), proposed establishment of, 19
International Board on Domestic Animal Resour(;es,
proposal for, 162
International Board for Plant Genetic Resources
(IBPGR), 19, 23, 233, 235, 269-273, 277-278
conservation training program by, 303
crop diversity reports by, 77
data collection by, 299
germplasm exchange and, 25
national genebanks and, 302, 303
plant collection strategies by, 173
U.S. support of, 305
International Cell Research Organization, 275
International Center for Genetic Engineering and
Biotechnology, 305
International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT),
186
International Council for Bird Preser\ration (ICBP),
124, 263, 267, 269
International Council for Research in Agroforestry’,
122
International Council for Scientific Unions, 263, 266
International Environment Protection Act of 1983,
289
International Institute for Environment and Development, 295
International Institute for Tropical Agriculture
(IITA), 186
International Livestock Centre for Africa, 143, 273,
301
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center
(CIMMYT), 270
International Meteorological organization, 256
International Plant Protection Convention (I PPC), 262
International Rice Research Institute (I RRI), 270
IR36 development by, 53, 169-171
International Security and Development Cooperation
Act of 1980, 14-15
International Sheep and Goat Institute, 240
International Species Inventory System (ISIS), 140,
151, 241-242, 274
International Union for the Conservation of Nature
and Natural Resources (I UCN), 257, 263, 264,
267-269, 273-277, 300
Botanic Gardens Conservation Coordinating Body,
173
Commission on Ecology, 122-123
Conservation for Development Center, 268
Conservation Monitoring Center, 112, 268, 293
data collection by, 21, 83, 124, 125, 293
ecosystem conservation by, 129
protected area categorization by, 110-111, 112
Species Conservation Monitoring Unit, 68, 69, 142
threatened species definition of, 70
mentinnc(] in
the hexes.
330 . Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (IUPOV), 260-262
in-vitro culture, 7, 15, 94
for animal diversity maintenance, 155
for offsite plant collections, 172, 172, 177, 186,
192-193, 194
Iowa, 66
Ireland, 139
Izaak Walton League of America, 231
Japan, 15, 47
Kafue National Park (Zambia), 44
Kansas, University of, 242
Kenya, 46, 49, 301
diversity project, in, 294
protected areas in, 109
Keystone Center
germplasm exchange and, 26
Kingman Resource Area (Arizona), 115
Kiribati, 109
Kobuk Valley (Alaska), 46
Kuna Indian Udirbi Tropical Forest Reserve (Panama), 297
Lacey Act of 1900, amendments to, 23, 255
Land and Water Conservation Fund
data collection and, 2I
refuges funded by, 230
Latin America, 22, 25, 302
biological diversity in, 75
breed resource categorization in, 160
Conservation Data Centers in, 299
quarantine facilities in, 147
legislation
diversity maintenance, 7-8, 11-13, 18, 23, 26, 27-28,
31-32, 254-262, 223, 258
international, 254-262, 258
plant patenting, 25
U. S., 222, 228, 230,233, 223, 261
Liberia, 301
Longleaf-Slash Pine Forest, 41
lyophilization, 210, 212
Madagascar, 71
Malayan Nature Society, 71, 298
Malaysia, 47, 50, 71, 81
development assistance to, 297, 298
Man in the Biosphere Program (MAB), 30, 128-129,
225, 264-266
database of, 21
diversity maintenance strategy of, 118
onsite maintenance as goal of, 225
protected areas and, 107, 112
U.S. support for, 22, 23
Marine Sanctuary Program, 111
Massachusetts, 5, 40-41
Mauritania, 69
Meat Animal Research Center (MARC), 239
Mesa Verde (Colorado), 46
Mexican National Research Institute for Biological
Resources (INIREB), 298
Mexico
bilateral program in, 305
diversity loss in, 80
diversity management strategy in, 118-119
in situ genebank for, 301
teosinte habitat in, 122
Michigan, University of, 302
Microbiological Resource Center (Hawaii), 244
Microbiological Resource Centers, 213, 275, 305
micro-organisms
collections of, 242-244
cultures of, 211-212, 213
diversity maintenance for, 205-213, 275, 206
identification of, 209
isolation of, 7, 91, 208-209, 213
storage methods for, 209-212
Minnesota, 14, 46, 200, 241
Minnesota, University of, 242
modeling
data collection for, 108-109
for plant collecting, 173-175
for protected areas, 107, 108-109, 114
of species-area relationships, 71-74
Mongolia, 119, 156
Montana State University, 129
Montevideo Botanic Gardens, 273
Morrocoy National Park (Venezuela), 49
Moscow Botanic Gardens, 273
Mount Everest, 46
Mount Kenya, 46
Mount Taishan (China), 46
Mozambique, 80
multilateral development banks (MDBs), 23-24,
294-296
National Academy of Sciences (NAS), 26, 160
National Agricultural Library, 160
National Audubon Society, 231
National Biological Diversity Act, proposal for, 11-12
National Board for Domestic Animal Resources,
proposal for, 162
national clonal repository (Oregon), 235
National Conservation Education Act, proposal for,
14
National Conservation Strategy (NCS), 12, 115, 300
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 12, 80-81,
127
National Forest Management Act of 1976, 11, 222,
226, 231-232
National Forest System, 225, 231-232
National Foundation on Arts and Humanities Act of
1965, 17
National Heritage Data Centers, 21
National Institutes of Health (NIH], 213
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 228-229
National Microbial Resource Network, proposed creation of, 212-213
National Natural Landmarks, 227
Index “ 331
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
111, 294, 302
National Park Service (NPS], U. S., 30, 302
Boundary Model of, 114
database integration by, 125
diversity maintenance as objective in, 226-227
diversity management strategy of, 117, 118
ecosystem restoration by, 119
environmental expertise in, 294
onsite maintenance technology by, 128
onsite restoration by, 232
threats from areas adjacent to, 224
National Plant Genetic Resources Board, 233, 235
National Plant Germplasm Committee, 233, 235
National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS), 8, 18, 19,
222, 232-237, 246, 303
clonal repositories, 186, 187, 188
diversity assessment by, 188, 189
evolution of, 174
Germplasm Resources Information Network, 190,
191
seed storage by, 180
technology development by, 195
National Sanctuaries Program, 115
National Science Foundation [NSF), 16
Division of Biotic Systems and Resources, 16
experimental ecological areas and, 226
offsite maintenance research and, 159
offsite management training by, 158
research and, 16, 129-130, 196, 213
National Seed Storage Laboratory (NSSL), 19, 233,
246
facilities of, 236
funding for, 18
storage practices of, 180-181, 183
National Small Grains collection, U. S., 190, 233
National Water Commission, 12
National Wilderness Preservation System, 224
management strategy for, 117
National Wildlife Refuge System, 224, 229-230
National Wildlife Refuges, 226
National Zoo (Washington, D.C.), 158
National Zoo Conservation and Research Center [Virginia), 303
Native Seeds/SEARCH, 122
Natural History Museum of Lima, 298
Navaho Nation, 230
Nebraska, 151
Neisseria Reference I.aboratory, 242
Nepal, 47, 49
Department of Medicinal Plants in, 51
national conservation strategy for, 300
threatened species list in, 71
Nevada, 66
New Hampshire, 66
New Zealand, 287
nongovernmental organizations (NGOS], 263-264,
267-268
diversity maintenance programs of, 16, 17, 30-31
international conservation operations of, 14-15
linkages with AID by, 294, 298
Nordic Gene Bank (Sweden, 172
North America, 25, 41, 125, 151
agricultural breeding in, 52-53
captive breeding in, 156
data collection in, 124
diversity loss in, 63
threatened species in, 70
North American Fruit Explorers, 190
Northern Regional Research Laboratory (NRRI,), 242,
244
North Yemen, 80
Oak Ridge National Environmental Research Park,
118
Oceania
breed resource categorization in, 160
diversity loss in, 80
domestic animal monitoring in, 143
threatened species lists in, 70
Office of Endangered Species, 237
Office of Forestry, Natural Resources, and the Environment (FNR), 292
Office of Management and Budget, 267
off site diversity maintenance
animal programs for, 238-242
choosing strategies for, 138-142
classification of plant collections for, 170-171
facilities for, 1 5 8
funding for, 158, 159, 160-162, 235-238, 242-244,
246
improvements needed for, 157-162, 194-196
international laws relating to, 259-262
international programs for, 259-275
micro-organism, 208, 213, 242-244
objectives of, 137-138, 169-171
plant programs for, 90-91, 173-178, 232-238
population sampling strategies for, 142-145
storing samples for, 91, 178-190, 194-195
technology for, 6-8, 15-16, 90-91, 95, 137-162,
169-196
using plants stored for, 190-194
Oklahoma, 227
Olympic National Park, 43
onsite diversity maintenance
data collection for, 123-127, 130
for ecosystems, 89-90, 111-112, 128-129
funding programs for, 229
improvements needed for, 128-130
international laws for, 255-259
international programs for, 264-268
management, 115-119
micro-organism, 207-208, 206
personnel development for, 130
planning techniques, 113-116
restoring, 231-232
for species, 90
technology for, 6, 15, 89-90, 95, 103-130, 224
trade-offs involving, 113
Oregon, 47
332 Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity
Oregon State University,
47
Organization of American States (OAS), 122, 123,
129, 301
orthodox seeds, 171, 183
Pakistan, 71, 69
Panama, 122
Paraguay, 300
Participating Agency Service Agreements (PASAS), 30
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center (Maryland), 241
Peace Corps, 30-31, 294, 298
Pennsylvania State University, 243
Peru, 47, 298
plant collection in, 184
species diversity in, 4, 68
Peruvian Conservation Foundation, 298
pharmacology, 4
diversity maintenance’s value to, 37, 44-45
micro-organisms’ use in, 206
Philippines
deforest